Mike Davis on Distance

[Lodestone]

Watching highlights of Jason Day, and can't help but think "Boy he isn't nearly as built or strong as Jack was. It must be the ball!"

 

Ok, I'm not. I'm just kidding.

Well, they were probably within an inch or so in height, and the same weight. And, no, Jack didn't train the same as Jason does, but as far as golf fitness, was there really anyone stronger than Jack? Seriously, I doubt it.

Jason Day could bench press Jack.

 

Jason Day is far more flexible than Jack. Those 2 factors alone help Day hit the ball far.

 

Bench press Jack? Gary maybe, but not Jack. Especially when Jack first came out.

[Lodestone]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

Perhaps the clubs have the ego problem.

 

Was is necessary for the club discussed in this thread to set up the course so that the four elite players from WV would shoot a collective 130 over par?

 

The poster claimed the winds were high. Could they not watch the weather forecast and decide the course was too hard after 20 players shot in the 80 and two players shot in the 90s the first round?

 

Why not dial it back? Isn't this supposed to be fun for these college kids?

 

Clubs have a revenue problem. Athletic directors, USGA officials, and state golf officials choose courses with deep tee boxes. If you can't tip the course out over 7,000 yards then you don't get events. The events generate a lot of revenue.

 

Isolating one course in one event and the layout on one day is a microscopic look at the modern golf landscape. We have a lot of anecdotal outlooks in this thread, and I think if you look at the posters who have a broader perspective on the game you get the picture. The major problems with golf today have a lot to do with length. Courses are simply too long. A "competition ball" that makes courses between 6,600 and 7,000 yards relevant for eternity would slow the "arms race" of longer and longer golf courses.

 

Calm down. You'll still get to play the "hot ball" in your senior club championships from 6,600 yards. Top Am's, college players, and pros are playing a different game. We may call it all "golf" but it's a different game. One that we can't continue to lengthen the playing field to play. At some point it becomes the ball or the game. But, I guess the average WRX'er knows much more about that than Jack or Johnny Miller.

 

The average WRXer may know more about the game that 99% of players play than Jack or Johnny Miller.

 

And do you really think that the members of the courses that the PGA play are hurting for revenue? Generally they are resort courses or ultra-posh private clubs. And that's before they get the pop from the PGA for playing there.

 

I will agree that clubs that hold USGA events other than the US Open probably are getting a bit short for the best amateur players, IF they don't want to get the fairways long and narrow. But bifurcating the rules to have these events played with a different ball affects exactly the players I was talking about, the player making a transition from "really good amateur" to "elite". And if we don't bifurcate over this point, then the ball change affects everyone, 99% of whom don't want it.

[mosesgolf]

Today's top players are more athletic, fit, stronger (lifting weights), have access to properly fit state of the art equipment and instruction at the highest level. This translates to more players being longer on average vs players from 20 years ago and beyond. It's not just the ball. Are there -20 or better scores every week?

[Roadking2003]

I'm wondering if Jon Rohm was using the new shorter ball yesterday. Shot 82......

[bigeasy]

Ok, rather if you shoot 59 from 5700 yards or 7500 yards, you still have to get the ball in the hole. We all have to play the same holes and what difference does it make, its not hurting the game. Much ado about nothing!!!

[caniac6]

I watched the documentary about Jack, and I was very surprised how strong and athletic he was when he was younger. He didn't have a body like the guys today, but he really swung hard, and got a tremendous amount of power from tree trunk legs. I believe Jack would be among the long players if his prime was now, playing with modern balls and clubs. Jack was no Adonis, but I think it is wrong to underestimate his athletic ability.

[tnord]

if you think brute strength is what generates power in golf, you're hopeless.

[gvogel]

I watched the documentary about Jack, and I was very surprised how strong and athletic he was when he was younger. He didn't have a body like the guys today, but he really swung hard, and got a tremendous amount of power from tree trunk legs. I believe Jack would be among the long players if his prime was now, playing with modern balls and clubs. Jack was no Adonis, but I think it is wrong to underestimate his athletic ability.

 

Jack had great flexibility in his wrists, and great power from his back and legs. He was a pretty darn good high school running back in football, and a fair freshman basketball player at Ohio State. I have seen pictures of Jack and his family skiing.

 

Looking like muscular weight lifter with a skinny waist, and being an exceptional athlete are two different things. But his most important weapon was his athletic mind.

[gvogel]

He meant aggregate expenditure. There are over 15,000 golf courses in the US.

 

Some of you are thick and / or have very fragile egos that you prop up with a little length off the tee.

 

The argument that only wealthy clubs are effected is asinine. Three clubs in my town compete for state and national events and all three need more revenue.

 

R&A and USGA have limited distance for years, this is just another instance.

 

Perhaps the clubs have the ego problem.

 

Was is necessary for the club discussed in this thread to set up the course so that the four elite players from WV would shoot a collective 130 over par?

 

The poster claimed the winds were high. Could they not watch the weather forecast and decide the course was too hard after 20 players shot in the 80 and two players shot in the 90s the first round?

 

Why not dial it back? Isn't this supposed to be fun for these college kids?

 

Clubs have a revenue problem. Athletic directors, USGA officials, and state golf officials choose courses with deep tee boxes. If you can't tip the course out over 7,000 yards then you don't get events. The events generate a lot of revenue.

 

Isolating one course in one event and the layout on one day is a microscopic look at the modern golf landscape. We have a lot of anecdotal outlooks in this thread, and I think if you look at the posters who have a broader perspective on the game you get the picture. The major problems with golf today have a lot to do with length. Courses are simply too long. A "competition ball" that makes courses between 6,600 and 7,000 yards relevant for eternity would slow the "arms race" of longer and longer golf courses.

 

Calm down. You'll still get to play the "hot ball" in your senior club championships from 6,600 yards. Top Am's, college players, and pros are playing a different game. We may call it all "golf" but it's a different game. One that we can't continue to lengthen the playing field to play. At some point it becomes the ball or the game. But, I guess the average WRX'er knows much more about that than Jack or Johnny Miller.

 

The average WRXer may know more about the game that 99% of players play than Jack or Johnny Miller.

 

And do you really think that the members of the courses that the PGA play are hurting for revenue? Generally they are resort courses or ultra-posh private clubs. And that's before they get the pop from the PGA for playing there.

 

I will agree that clubs that hold USGA events other than the US Open probably are getting a bit short for the best amateur players, IF they don't want to get the fairways long and narrow. But bifurcating the rules to have these events played with a different ball affects exactly the players I was talking about, the player making a transition from "really good amateur" to "elite". And if we don't bifurcate over this point, then the ball change affects everyone, 99% of whom don't want it.

 

95% of your 99% play tees which are much too long for their ability. And yet, golfers are a stubborn lot. They play tees which are much too long in the mistaken attempt to measure their games against what they see on television. Or, they deem it a scourge on their honor if someone suggests that they play it forward.

 

I played in a league last Thursday. It was 55* and and windy; we have had a lot of rain, so the course is very soft. Balls were plugging and lost in the rough. The tees we played would have been about 3200 - 6400 for 18. No one in our group reached a par 4 in two. I hit driver on each of the par 3's, and was in the middle of the green on one, and just over on the other. The rest of my foursome were some 15 - 20 yards short on those par 3's with their fairway woods, the clubs they might use in the summer. When I suggested that we should be playing from the senior tees, they told me I was crazy - even though were are all over 50, with swing speeds of 95 or less. I wonder who the crazy ones are.

 

A ball reduced in flight wouldn't affect us much at all, particularly if we moved up a set of tees. Changing the COR of our drivers to what was available in the first generation of steel drivers wouldn't affect us at all. The only players that get the full benefit of .83 COR are high swing speed elite players. Golf was a fine game in the 1980's and early 1990's with persimmon and early steel. The long players were plenty long. It didn't have to become bomb and gauge.

[North Butte]

I've played with clubs from back then and yeah, it was a fine game. It's far more enjoyable with the stuff we use today. That's why we use it.

[Popeye64]

One thing is for sure... it would have been a heckuva lot cheaper to limit the distance on balls than it has been to lengthen golf courses to keep up with how far they're hitting it. So, they figured out an expensive way to keep up with the distance changes, but today's ball goes straighter with less spin and it's taken some of the skill of shot control out of the game.

 

Golf has been on a steady upward curve as regards equipment improvements since the early 1900's. I think they need to find a happy medium and find a way to keep it there. A lot of the improvements have been great for the game, but the cost of maintaining a course is rising, and the cost of buying new equipment has gone through the roof. At some point, they've got to figure out a way to get it under control.

I agree with a lot of what you said but until the consumer stops buying $500+ drivers and $2000+sets of irons prices will only continue to rise.

[Roadking2003]

95% of your 99% play tees which are much too long for their ability. And yet, golfers are a stubborn lot. They play tees which are much too long in the mistaken attempt to measure their games against what they see on television. Or, they deem it a scourge on their honor if someone suggests that they play it forward.

 

That's a really stupid post. None of the guys I play with play the wrong tees and I'm sure that's not unusual.

 

You need to play with a different crowd.

[Roadking2003]

So here we are watching the best players in the world get their butts kicked by a 7245 yard golf course. Somebody needs to tell Jon Rohm (82), Justin Rose (80), and Jason Day (80) that their hot golf balls go too far so this course is too easy and will soon be obsolete. Maybe Mike Davis should call them and explain.

[MtlJeff]

So here we are watching the best players in the world get their butts kicked by a 7245 yard golf course. Somebody needs to tell Jon Rohm (82), Justin Rose (80), and Jason Day (80) that their hot golf balls go too far so this course is too easy and will soon be obsolete. Maybe Mike Davis should call them and explain.

 

Playing 7078 today actually so even shorter!

 

And they all have cheater lob wedges too

[green.tea]

It's really too bad the driver, ball, lob wedge, exercise, yoga, science, technology, evolution have made Sawgrass obsolete

[North Butte]

Well once these guys catch on and switch to a KIRKLAND Signature balls it'll take more than some wind to keep them from shooting 25-under.

[Roadking2003]

So here we are watching the best players in the world get their butts kicked by a 7245 yard golf course. Somebody needs to tell Jon Rohm (82), Justin Rose (80), and Jason Day (80) that their hot golf balls go too far so this course is too easy and will soon be obsolete. Maybe Mike Davis should call them and explain.

 

Playing 7078 today actually so even shorter!

 

And they all have cheater lob wedges too

 

Wow! They need to shut it down or add 500 yards. I get so tired watching these guys hid driver / wedge to every par 4. It makes the game so boring.

[Lodestone]

95% of your 99% play tees which are much too long for their ability. And yet, golfers are a stubborn lot. They play tees which are much too long in the mistaken attempt to measure their games against what they see on television. Or, they deem it a scourge on their honor if someone suggests that they play it forward.

 

That's a really stupid post. None of the guys I play with play the wrong tees and I'm sure that's not unusual.

 

You need to play with a different crowd.

 

One my munie there are a couple of groups who play a skin game, and not for very much money, but they include White Tee and Senior Tee players. The guys who run the skin games play the Whites, and put pressure on the staff to not put the Yellows where they should be. So I'll be "playing them forward" and the Senior Tees are back on the regular Men's tee boxes, maybe 5 paces forward.

I have mentioned to the pro that it's kind of stupid to have all of these "Play it Forward" posters from the USGA plastered all over the locker room, and in front of the urinal, if they are going to do that. Anyway.....back to your regular programing.

[North Butte]

Why not just tell the yellow tee guys they get to tee off five paces in front of the white tees. Then leave the yellows in their rated positions.

[Lodestone]

Why not just tell the yellow tee guys they get to tee off five paces in front of the white tees. Then leave the yellows in their rated positions.

 

That would make too much sense.

 

But I will say this about yellow tees- many courses, including the one I play regularly, really don't have yellow tee boxes. They have Whites and Reds (ladies') and the yellows are sometimes at the front of the Whites, and other times on the Reds. On many holes on our course, there may be 80-100 yard jump from Whites to Yellows which is a bit much.

[Brass_Bullseye]

Today's top players are more athletic, fit, stronger (lifting weights), have access to properly fit state of the art equipment and instruction at the highest level. This translates to more players being longer on average vs players from 20 years ago and beyond. It's not just the ball. Are there -20 or better scores every week?

 

1989 I was a 4-hdcp and hit a forged blade 4-iron 175 yds. Today I'm a 12-hdcp and hit a forged blade 7-iron 175 yds. I haven't worked out since 1989. It's the ball.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Today's top players are more athletic, fit, stronger (lifting weights), have access to properly fit state of the art equipment and instruction at the highest level. This translates to more players being longer on average vs players from 20 years ago and beyond. It's not just the ball. Are there -20 or better scores every week?

 

1989 I was a 4-hdcp and hit a forged blade 4-iron 175 yds. Today I'm a 12-hdcp and hit a forged blade 7-iron 175 yds. I haven't worked out since 1989. It's the ball.

 

Sounds awful. I'm sorry, bro.

[green.tea]

Today's top players are more athletic, fit, stronger (lifting weights), have access to properly fit state of the art equipment and instruction at the highest level. This translates to more players being longer on average vs players from 20 years ago and beyond. It's not just the ball. Are there -20 or better scores every week?

 

1989 I was a 4-hdcp and hit a forged blade 4-iron 175 yds. Today I'm a 12-hdcp and hit a forged blade 7-iron 175 yds. I haven't worked out since 1989. It's the ball.

 

Sounds like you should work on your distances and course management better

[Brass_Bullseye]

Today's top players are more athletic, fit, stronger (lifting weights), have access to properly fit state of the art equipment and instruction at the highest level. This translates to more players being longer on average vs players from 20 years ago and beyond. It's not just the ball. Are there -20 or better scores every week?

 

1989 I was a 4-hdcp and hit a forged blade 4-iron 175 yds. Today I'm a 12-hdcp and hit a forged blade 7-iron 175 yds. I haven't worked out since 1989. It's the ball.

 

Sounds like you should work on your distances and course management better

 

Only if you work on your jokes...

[green.tea]

Who is joking?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Who is joking?

 

Seriously. If one is to apply his anecdote to the masses, the ball is actually making golfers worse. Imagine if these modern players got to play with the old balls, uh, wait, what I mean is, they would evidently take eight fewer strokes, erhm. They'd be better, is the point, right?

[playa]

Watching highlights of Jason Day, and can't help but think "Boy he isn't nearly as built or strong as Jack was. It must be the ball!"

 

Ok, I'm not. I'm just kidding.

Well, they were probably within an inch or so in height, and the same weight. And, no, Jack didn't train the same as Jason does, but as far as golf fitness, was there really anyone stronger than Jack? Seriously, I doubt it.

Jason Day could bench press Jack.

 

Jason Day is far more flexible than Jack. Those 2 factors alone help Day hit the ball far.

 

Bench press Jack? Gary maybe, but not Jack. Especially when Jack first came out.

Tiger fully juiced would have been struggling to bench young Jack.

[youdamantiger]

I'm torn on this subject. I think it's obvious that the ball has made the game easier by mitigating side-spin and increasing distance, but that's of a piece with the advancements we've made in clubs and turf conditions. For instance, a couple of years ago I was on the range at my club and there was a 16 year old kid there lacing ball after ball 275 yards with his driver. You could tell the kid was pretty content with himself. An elderly gentlemen, who I assume was his granddad, was watching the kid intently. After a few more bombs, the granddad, with a wry smile, pulled an old persimmon head, steel shafted driver out of his own bag and asked his grandson to try it out. It was quite amusing seeing the steam come out of this kid's ears after hitting his sixth 150 yard duck hook in a row with that antique. After making some adjustments he managed to straighten it out a little bit but the ball never went past 225 yards.

 

Contrary to some in the thread, however, I think 100% of the gains in distance the past 20 years have been equipment based. Players being more athletic or more fit has nothing to do with it. What does being "athletic" really benefit you in golf? If there were huge gains to be had from spending your days doing wind sprints and pumping iron then Billy Horschel would outdrive J.B.Holmes and Bernhard Langer would outdrive John Daly. Sure you can point to bombers who are athletic specimens like DJ or Gary Woodland, but it doesn't explain why a guy like Holmes or a lanky string bean like Bubba are distance leaders. Cut-from-granite Greg Norman was shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Tiger was longer with his Steve Urkel body than he was with his Arnold Schwarzenegger body. Chunky Rory was longer than gym rat Rory, etc.There are three ingredients to being a bomber, freakish hand/eye coordination, flexibility, and technique. If you have those three in abundance you will move it out there whether you have a six pack or a keg.

 

And while I'm on this hobby horse, allow me to say a bit about the strength of field debate that always comes up when discussing the different eras in golf. The players of today are not better than the guys from Nicklaus's era, they're empirically worse. Let's take a gander at the innumerable advantages the modern player has. Video, Track-man, full swing coach, short game coach, nutritionist, cutting edge equipment, pristine turf conditions, personal trainer, sports psychologist, access to private jets, etc. I threw in the etc because I'm probably forgetting something. And all of those advantages, every single one geared toward making the modern player the best golfer he can possibly be has produced a tour leading scoring average of Dustin Johnson's 69.172. Nearly 40 years ago, before every single one of the advantages I mentioned above, the tour leading scoring average was Lee Trevino's...69.73. All of those advantages have produced an improvement of 0.558.

 

Let's use a micro analogy to further flesh this out. Suppose you went out and played a round in 20mph winds and you posted a 75. I go out the next day on the same course without a breath of wind and shoot a 74. There isn't a single soul who would argue that I was the better player, yet when we extrapolate this analogy into the macro that's essentially what people frequently do argue. The guys from Nicklaus's era played their entire careers in a figurative 20mph wind. With the added pressure of knowing that, unless they cracked the top ten on the money list, they would be folding shirts in a pro-shop in Poughkeepsie. These days a guy can spend his entire career bouncing around the top 50 on the money list and retire a multi-millionaire. The guys these days aren't as good because they don't have to be.

 

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the truly elite players of today wouldn't make it in Nicklaus's time. Rory would be a multiple major winner no matter the era. Ditto Phil. And whether you give Tiger hickory and persimmon or titanium and Fubuki he's going to be dominant. No, I'm not arguing those guys wouldn't make it, I'm simply arguing that the Kevin Kisners and the Russell Henleys wouldn't. Your average tour pro today is simply not good enough to have made it in that era. And for the record, I'm not waving my pom poms on behalf of those guys because they were the players I grew up watching. I'm 36. I grew up in the bomb and gouge, modern era. I say those guys are better because I'm an empiricist. And when I see a group producing essentially the same result as another with inferior equipment and fewer external advantages, I have to give the nod to that group. Here endeth the rant.

 

As for the ball, I think that (so far) the Tour and the host courses have done a great job at mitigating the advances in equipment. As long as the three pronged approach of lengthening, lowering par, and making the hazards and rough more penal are working there's no need to dial back the ball. Ask me again in five years though and I may feel differently.

[mjen43]

I'm torn on this subject. I think it's obvious that the ball has made the game easier by mitigating side-spin and increasing distance, but that's of a piece with the advancements we've made in clubs and turf conditions. For instance, a couple of years ago I was on the range at my club and there was a 16 year old kid there lacing ball after ball 275 yards with his driver. You could tell the kid was pretty content with himself. An elderly gentlemen, who I assume was his granddad, was watching the kid intently. After a few more bombs, the granddad, with a wry smile, pulled an old persimmon head, steel shafted driver out of his own bag and asked his grandson to try it out. It was quite amusing seeing the steam come out of this kid's ears after hitting his sixth 150 yard duck hook in a row with that antique. After making some adjustments he managed to straighten it out a little bit but the ball never went past 225 yards.

 

Contrary to some in the thread, however, I think 100% of the gains in distance the past 20 years have been equipment based. Players being more athletic or more fit has nothing to do with it. What does being "athletic" really benefit you in golf? If there were huge gains to be had from spending your days doing wind sprints and pumping iron then Billy Horschel would outdrive J.B.Holmes and Bernhard Langer would outdrive John Daly. Sure you can point to bombers who are athletic specimens like DJ or Gary Woodland, but it doesn't explain why a guy like Holmes or a lanky string bean like Bubba are distance leaders. Cut-from-granite Greg Norman was shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Tiger was longer with his Steve Urkel body than he was with his Arnold Schwarzenegger body. Chunky Rory was longer than gym rat Rory, etc.There are three ingredients to being a bomber, freakish hand/eye coordination, flexibility, and technique. If you have those three in abundance you will move it out there whether you have a six pack or a keg.

 

And while I'm on this hobby horse, allow me to say a bit about the strength of field debate that always comes up when discussing the different eras in golf. The players of today are not better than the guys from Nicklaus's era, they're empirically worse. Let's take a gander at the innumerable advantages the modern player has. Video, Track-man, full swing coach, short game coach, nutritionist, cutting edge equipment, pristine turf conditions, personal trainer, sports psychologist, access to private jets, etc. I threw in the etc because I'm probably forgetting something. And all of those advantages, every single one geared toward making the modern player the best golfer he can possibly be has produced a tour leading scoring average of Dustin Johnson's 69.172. Nearly 40 years ago, before every single one of the advantages I mentioned above, the tour leading scoring average was Lee Trevino's...69.73. All of those advantages have produced an improvement of 0.558.

 

Let's use a micro analogy to further flesh this out. Suppose you went out and played a round in 20mph winds and you posted a 75. I go out the next day on the same course without a breath of wind and shoot a 74. There isn't a single soul who would argue that I was the better player, yet when we extrapolate this analogy into the macro that's essentially what people frequently do argue. The guys from Nicklaus's era played their entire careers in a figurative 20mph wind. With the added pressure of knowing that, unless they cracked the top ten on the money list, they would be folding shirts in a pro-shop in Poughkeepsie. These days a guy can spend his entire career bouncing around the top 50 on the money list and retire a multi-millionaire. The guys these days aren't as good because they don't have to be.

 

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the truly elite players of today wouldn't make it in Nicklaus's time. Rory would be a multiple major winner no matter the era. Ditto Phil. And whether you give Tiger hickory and persimmon or titanium and Fubuki he's going to be dominant. No, I'm not arguing those guys wouldn't make it, I'm simply arguing that the Kevin Kisners and the Russell Henleys wouldn't. Your average tour pro today is simply not good enough to have made it in that era. And for the record, I'm not waving my pom poms on behalf of those guys because they were the players I grew up watching. I'm 36. I grew up in the bomb and gouge, modern era. I say those guys are better because I'm an empiricist. And when I see a group producing essentially the same result as another with inferior equipment and fewer external advantages, I have to give the nod to that group. Here endeth the rant.

 

As for the ball, I think that (so far) the Tour and the host courses have done a great job at mitigating the advances in equipment. As long as the three pronged approach of lengthening, lowering par, and making the hazards and rough more penal are working there's no need to dial back the ball. Ask me again in five years though and I may feel differently.

 

I appreciate the effort made for this post but there is so much that I disagree with.

 

First, being athletic in golf benefits one in the same way that it benefits someone for virtually everything in life. I can't think of a single task, activity, sport, etc. where being strong, athletic, in-shape, healthy is a hindrance to one's performance. I just can't see golf being any different. Someone like Camilo Villegas may not have the career resume of John Daly, but I highly doubt Camilo would have gotten more out of his career if he looked like big John.

 

Next, you say that today's golfers are empirically worse than past golfers. You came to this conclusion because the player leading the scoring average category is now LOWER today, even though, in your words, courses are longer, with more penal hazard and rough. I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

I fail to understand why people think golf is different from any other sport when it comes to past vs. present performance. Nobody would argue that the NBA, MLB, or NFL had better players in the 60s and 70s but for some reason people think golf is different. Players today are better. Past greats would still be great if today was their time. The ball doesn't need to be rolled back. It is too late for that.

[youdamantiger]

I'm torn on this subject. I think it's obvious that the ball has made the game easier by mitigating side-spin and increasing distance, but that's of a piece with the advancements we've made in clubs and turf conditions. For instance, a couple of years ago I was on the range at my club and there was a 16 year old kid there lacing ball after ball 275 yards with his driver. You could tell the kid was pretty content with himself. An elderly gentlemen, who I assume was his granddad, was watching the kid intently. After a few more bombs, the granddad, with a wry smile, pulled an old persimmon head, steel shafted driver out of his own bag and asked his grandson to try it out. It was quite amusing seeing the steam come out of this kid's ears after hitting his sixth 150 yard duck hook in a row with that antique. After making some adjustments he managed to straighten it out a little bit but the ball never went past 225 yards.

 

Contrary to some in the thread, however, I think 100% of the gains in distance the past 20 years have been equipment based. Players being more athletic or more fit has nothing to do with it. What does being "athletic" really benefit you in golf? If there were huge gains to be had from spending your days doing wind sprints and pumping iron then Billy Horschel would outdrive J.B.Holmes and Bernhard Langer would outdrive John Daly. Sure you can point to bombers who are athletic specimens like DJ or Gary Woodland, but it doesn't explain why a guy like Holmes or a lanky string bean like Bubba are distance leaders. Cut-from-granite Greg Norman was shorter than doughy Fred Couples. Tiger was longer with his Steve Urkel body than he was with his Arnold Schwarzenegger body. Chunky Rory was longer than gym rat Rory, etc.There are three ingredients to being a bomber, freakish hand/eye coordination, flexibility, and technique. If you have those three in abundance you will move it out there whether you have a six pack or a keg.

 

And while I'm on this hobby horse, allow me to say a bit about the strength of field debate that always comes up when discussing the different eras in golf. The players of today are not better than the guys from Nicklaus's era, they're empirically worse. Let's take a gander at the innumerable advantages the modern player has. Video, Track-man, full swing coach, short game coach, nutritionist, cutting edge equipment, pristine turf conditions, personal trainer, sports psychologist, access to private jets, etc. I threw in the etc because I'm probably forgetting something. And all of those advantages, every single one geared toward making the modern player the best golfer he can possibly be has produced a tour leading scoring average of Dustin Johnson's 69.172. Nearly 40 years ago, before every single one of the advantages I mentioned above, the tour leading scoring average was Lee Trevino's...69.73. All of those advantages have produced an improvement of 0.558.

 

Let's use a micro analogy to further flesh this out. Suppose you went out and played a round in 20mph winds and you posted a 75. I go out the next day on the same course without a breath of wind and shoot a 74. There isn't a single soul who would argue that I was the better player, yet when we extrapolate this analogy into the macro that's essentially what people frequently do argue. The guys from Nicklaus's era played their entire careers in a figurative 20mph wind. With the added pressure of knowing that, unless they cracked the top ten on the money list, they would be folding shirts in a pro-shop in Poughkeepsie. These days a guy can spend his entire career bouncing around the top 50 on the money list and retire a multi-millionaire. The guys these days aren't as good because they don't have to be.

 

Now, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the truly elite players of today wouldn't make it in Nicklaus's time. Rory would be a multiple major winner no matter the era. Ditto Phil. And whether you give Tiger hickory and persimmon or titanium and Fubuki he's going to be dominant. No, I'm not arguing those guys wouldn't make it, I'm simply arguing that the Kevin Kisners and the Russell Henleys wouldn't. Your average tour pro today is simply not good enough to have made it in that era. And for the record, I'm not waving my pom poms on behalf of those guys because they were the players I grew up watching. I'm 36. I grew up in the bomb and gouge, modern era. I say those guys are better because I'm an empiricist. And when I see a group producing essentially the same result as another with inferior equipment and fewer external advantages, I have to give the nod to that group. Here endeth the rant.

 

As for the ball, I think that (so far) the Tour and the host courses have done a great job at mitigating the advances in equipment. As long as the three pronged approach of lengthening, lowering par, and making the hazards and rough more penal are working there's no need to dial back the ball. Ask me again in five years though and I may feel differently.

 

I appreciate the effort made for this post but there is so much that I disagree with.

 

First, being athletic in golf benefits one in the same way that it benefits someone for virtually everything in life. I can't think of a single task, activity, sport, etc. where being strong, athletic, in-shape, healthy is a hindrance to one's performance. I just can't see golf being any different. Someone like Camilo Villegas may not have the career resume of John Daly, but I highly doubt Camilo would have gotten more out of his career if he looked like big John.

 

Next, you say that today's golfers are empirically worse than past golfers. You came to this conclusion because the player leading the scoring average category is now LOWER today, even though, in your words, courses are longer, with more penal hazard and rough. I don't even know how to respond to that.

 

I fail to understand why people think golf is different from any other sport when it comes to past vs. present performance. Nobody would argue that the NBA, MLB, or NFL had better players in the 60s and 70s but for some reason people think golf is different. Players today are better. Past greats would still be great if today was their time. The ball doesn't need to be rolled back. It is too late for that.

 

Yes, lower by 0.558. Given all of the advantages modern players have and all of the disadvantages past players had, that difference is meaningless. And I didn't say modern courses are more penal than past courses, I think the reverse is true. I said that courses are doing a good job mitigating the huge distance gains modern equipment produces. Courses are longer today sure, because average distances throughout the bag have increased exponentially. But I think players of that era faced tougher course conditions. Just as equipment has advanced, so has agronomy.

 

And I didn't say one needs to be fat to be a great golfer, only that it doesn't hurt a player to be fat nearly as much as it would in any other sport. A guy shaped like Hideki would never make it in basketball or tennis, but he can be one of the best golfers in the world.