Mike Davis on Distance

green.tea · May 15, 2017

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.

A guy shaped like your average NFL OT wouldn't make it in Tennis either, so what?

tnord · May 15, 2017

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.

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC

Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC

Poulter - 195th

Cabrera-Bello -35th

Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?

Shilgy · May 15, 2017

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.

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?

Why hold a tournament if all you want is to see #1 win? Yes, the course identified the best players-this week. If you watched the guys you noted played marvelous golf. Much better than the top guys in the owgr.

Shilgy · May 15, 2017

A guy shaped like your average NFL OT wouldn't make it in Tennis either, so what? Maybe he meant Aphibarnratt?

Matsuyama is what he considers out of shape?

Matt J · May 15, 2017

Only on WRX is 7,265 yards considered short. You may have missed the point if you use a course that just went through a $25 million renovation as your example.

Vindog · May 15, 2017

A guy shaped like your average NFL OT wouldn't make it in Tennis either, so what? Maybe he meant Aphibarnratt?
Matsuyama is what he considers out of shape?

Now I ain't no Roman Reigns, but we did notice and have a chuckle about the "Americanization or Matsuyama" over the weekend. Meaning, he's got a hell of a spare tire budding.

Shilgy · May 15, 2017

A guy shaped like your average NFL OT wouldn't make it in Tennis either, so what? Maybe he meant Aphibarnratt?
Matsuyama is what he considers out of shape?

Now I ain't no Roman Reigns, but we did notice and have a chuckle about the "Americanization or Matsuyama" over the weekend. Meaning, he's got a hell of a spare tire budding.

Of course he did say you cannot play basketball that way-good thing he did not mention baseball-and there are certainly some hefty tennis players,especially on the women's tour.

Doyle Hargraves · May 15, 2017

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.

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?

It meaning what?

The rough? The entire course?

gvogel · May 15, 2017

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.

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?
Why hold a tournament if all you want is to see #1 win? Yes, the course identified the best players-this week. If you watched the guys you noted played marvelous golf. Much better than the top guys in the owgr.

The tricked up, too short to hit driver course identified the guy that scrambled best this week. That's all. It's a Mickey Mouse course. Might as well have windmill on it.

Thanks, I'll take Augusta National as a championship course any day. I'm looking forward to Erin Hills (I think).

BlackDiamondPar5 · May 15, 2017

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.

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?
Why hold a tournament if all you want is to see #1 win? Yes, the course identified the best players-this week. If you watched the guys you noted played marvelous golf. Much better than the top guys in the owgr.

The tricked up, too short to hit driver course identified the guy that scrambled best this week. That's all. It's a Mickey Mouse course. Might as well have windmill on it.

Thanks, I'll take Augusta National as a championship course any day. I'm looking forward to Erin Hills (I think).

While their ordering a windmill for TPC Sawgrass they should get a few for Chambers Bay and Whistling Straits. Perhaps a couple clowns as well :) I'll take Sawgrass over those two any day.

Shilgy · May 15, 2017

We all have different takes on tour courses it appears. What is a good test of golf for the top players? IMO they need to have all of the shots tested-and perhaps most importantly to know which shot to play when. Is a good test to have to blindly whip out driver on every tee box? I think not. Geez, we have a big thread about how the ball goes to far and courses are getting too long to accommodate and people now b**** that 7200 is too short.

But back to the test. Sawgrass would get old to have to watch or play week after week. But the same things that Augusta gets lauded for Sawgrass is getting slammed for. Razor thin margins? Check. Shots that look good but wind up wet? Check. Firm and fast greens? Check and check. So what's the problem? You can say that Augusta "identifies" the top player better but part of that is because with their limited field only the top players are there. I guess one way to identify the top players is to keep those from 76-150 out of the event?

Every player needs to determine on every shot how he can shoot his best score possible. Not just shoot the lowest score possible on each hole Brandel.... But also to insure that his total score is as low as possible. For Poulter it was to play somewhat safely. Hence the streak of holes without a bogey coming down the stretch. For him it sure seems to me it was the best plan as only one player finished with a lower score.

But the whole game was tested. One post complained that all Kim did was have the best short game. Perhaps a part of that was usually leaving himself relatively easy up and downs if he slightly missed a shot.

Last-how in the heck do you denigrate the game of the guy who won???

Lodestone · May 15, 2017

We all have different takes on tour courses it appears. What is a good test of golf for the top players? IMO they need to have all of the shots tested-and perhaps most importantly to know which shot to play when. Is a good test to have to blindly whip out driver on every tee box? I think not. Geez, we have a big thread about how the ball goes to far and courses are getting too long to accommodate and people now b**** that 7200 is too short.
But back to the test. Sawgrass would get old to have to watch or play week after week. But the same things that Augusta gets lauded for Sawgrass is getting slammed for. Razor thin margins? Check. Shots that look good but wind up wet? Check. Firm and fast greens? Check and check. So what's the problem? You can say that Augusta "identifies" the top player better but part of that is because with their limited field only the top players are there. I guess one way to identify the top players is to keep those from 76-150 out of the event?
Every player needs to determine on every shot how he can shoot his best score possible. Not just shoot the lowest score possible on each hole Brandel.... But also to insure that his total score is as low as possible. For Poulter it was to play somewhat safely. Hence the streak of holes without a bogey coming down the stretch. For him it sure seems to me it was the best plan as only one player finished with a lower score.
But the whole game was tested. One post complained that all Kim did was have the best short game. Perhaps a part of that was usually leaving himself relatively easy up and downs if he slightly missed a shot.
Last-how in the heck do you denigrate the game of the guy who won???

excellent point. Everyone says The Players has the best, deepest field, yet some want to criticize the layout for "allowing" the OWGR #75 to win it.

Personally, I don't think it's a great layout. I think at best it's gimmicky, and in certain conditions it exceeds "gimmicky" and gets into "goofy".

But it's still golf, and Kim didn't do anything that the top ranked players couldn't have done.

Roadking2003 · May 15, 2017

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

Yes, it did identify the best players last week. Just like many other tournaments. Just because lowly Shaun Micheel won the British doesn't mean he wasn't the best golfer that week.

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?

If Day could hit straight drives he would have hit driver. This course tested the players ability to drive the ball. And exposed Day's inaccuracy. Day hit two balls into the water on 16 and neither were off the tee.

Lots of players hit drivers and the ones who could do so accurately found themselves with many very short approaches to the greens that produced a lot of birdies. Driving a ball long AND straight is a skill that was tested quite well last week.

Mike Davis and many others on this board are complaining that tour golf is boring and too easy because the ball goes too far. I think we saw this week that the ball doesn't go too far and only in Mike Davis' mind do we need a shorter ball.

McIlroy hit 43% of his fairways. That's poor driving regardless of what club he hit. Kim hit 70% and that's one reason he won. So Kim hit 15 more fairways than McIlroy. So yes, this course tested their driving ability quite well.

Roadking2003 · May 15, 2017

Why hold a tournament if all you want is to see #1 win? Yes, the course identified the best players-this week. If you watched the guys you noted played marvelous golf. Much better than the top guys in the owgr.

exactly! We already know who is the best player in the world. What we identified is the best player in the world last week on a very tough, but short, golf course.

Poulter hit 79% of fairways yesterday and that's why he was smelling the lead almost to the end. Stanley hit 43%. That was huge.

Roadking2003 · May 15, 2017

Only on WRX is 7,265 yards considered short. You may have missed the point if you use a course that just went through a $25 million renovation as your example.

So, tell me more. What is the point?

BTW, it didn't play 7,265 on Sunday when it kicked their butts. Also, 7,265 is not long for the PGA Tour. Erin Hills is over 7800 for example.

Roadking2003 · May 15, 2017

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.

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?
Why hold a tournament if all you want is to see #1 win? Yes, the course identified the best players-this week. If you watched the guys you noted played marvelous golf. Much better than the top guys in the owgr.

The tricked up, too short to hit driver course identified the guy that scrambled best this week. That's all. It's a Mickey Mouse course. Might as well have windmill on it.

Thanks, I'll take Augusta National as a championship course any day. I'm looking forward to Erin Hills (I think).
While their ordering a windmill for TPC Sawgrass they should get a few for Chambers Bay and Whistling Straits. Perhaps a couple clowns as well :) I'll take Sawgrass over those two any day.

And The Old Course has a shed to hit over..... pretty close to a clown.

Shilgy · May 15, 2017

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

Yes, it did identify the best players last week. Just like many other tournaments. Just because lowly Shaun Micheel won the British doesn't mean he wasn't the best golfer that week.

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?

If Day could hit straight drives he would have hit driver. This course tested the players ability to drive the ball. And exposed Day's inaccuracy. Day hit two balls into the water on 16 and neither were off the tee.
Lots of players hit drivers and the ones who could do so accurately found themselves with many very short approaches to the greens that produced a lot of birdies. Driving a ball long AND straight is a skill that was tested quite well last week.

Mike Davis and many others on this board are complaining that tour golf is boring and too easy because the ball goes too far. I think we saw this week that the ball doesn't go too far and only in Mike Davis' mind do we need a shorter ball.

McIlroy hit 43% of his fairways. That's poor driving regardless of what club he hit. Kim hit 70% and that's one reason he won. So Kim hit 15 more fairways than McIlroy. So yes, this course tested their driving ability quite well.

Micheel won an Open? I thought he only won the PGA.

But yes your assessment was spot on other than that.:)

Roadking2003 · May 15, 2017

i don't think that using the TPC tournament is the example you want to give of a positive outcome of tightening and tricking up a golf course for those able to drive it well.

S. Kim - OWGR 75 pre-TPC
Oosthuizen - ranked 30th pre TPC
Poulter - 195th
Cabrera-Bello -35th
Stanley - 169th

is that course really identifying the best players?

Yes, it did identify the best players last week. Just like many other tournaments. Just because lowly Shaun Micheel won the British doesn't mean he wasn't the best golfer that week.

i think i just heard haney say that Day didn't hit a single driver in his final round last year? is that what you really want? you want to make it so penal for long drivers that it just neuters them down to your level? is driving the golf ball not a skill that should be tested? should golf courses be tricked up so much that it transforms into a series of par 3s where everyone is theoretically hitting their approach from the same spots?

If Day could hit straight drives he would have hit driver. This course tested the players ability to drive the ball. And exposed Day's inaccuracy. Day hit two balls into the water on 16 and neither were off the tee.
Lots of players hit drivers and the ones who could do so accurately found themselves with many very short approaches to the greens that produced a lot of birdies. Driving a ball long AND straight is a skill that was tested quite well last week.

Mike Davis and many others on this board are complaining that tour golf is boring and too easy because the ball goes too far. I think we saw this week that the ball doesn't go too far and only in Mike Davis' mind do we need a shorter ball.

McIlroy hit 43% of his fairways. That's poor driving regardless of what club he hit. Kim hit 70% and that's one reason he won. So Kim hit 15 more fairways than McIlroy. So yes, this course tested their driving ability quite well.
Micheel won an Open? I thought he only won the PGA.
But yes your assessment was spot on other than that. :)

Sorry. You are correct. The PGA. But the point is the same.

youdamantiger · May 15, 2017

A guy shaped like your average NFL OT wouldn't make it in Tennis either, so what? Maybe he meant Aphibarnratt?
Matsuyama is what he considers out of shape?

Now I ain't no Roman Reigns, but we did notice and have a chuckle about the "Americanization or Matsuyama" over the weekend. Meaning, he's got a hell of a spare tire budding.
Of course he did say you cannot play basketball that way-good thing he did not mention baseball-and there are certainly some hefty tennis players,especially on the women's tour.

Thanks for making my point I guess. If being obviously fat doesn't hinder you in basketball or baseball, why should it hinder you in golf? The point is, in golf, it doesn't really matter what your body shape is or how "athletic" you are. Which nullifies the argument that modern players are obviously better because they're more "athletic." There are bombers who are fat. There are bombers who are thin. There are bombers who are tall. There are bombers who are short. Being unathletic doesn't help you in golf, but it certainly doesn't seem to hinder you either.

Shilgy · May 15, 2017

A guy shaped like your average NFL OT wouldn't make it in Tennis either, so what? Maybe he meant Aphibarnratt?
Matsuyama is what he considers out of shape?

Now I ain't no Roman Reigns, but we did notice and have a chuckle about the "Americanization or Matsuyama" over the weekend. Meaning, he's got a hell of a spare tire budding.
Of course he did say you cannot play basketball that way-good thing he did not mention baseball-and there are certainly some hefty tennis players,especially on the women's tour.

Thanks for making my point I guess. If being obviously fat doesn't hinder you in basketball or baseball, why should it hinder you in golf? The point is, in golf, it doesn't really matter what your body shape is or how "athletic" you are. Which nullifies the argument that modern players are obviously better because they're more "athletic." There are bombers who are fat. There are bombers who are thin. There are bombers who are tall. There are bombers who are short. Being unathletic doesn't help you in golf, but it certainly doesn't seem to hinder you either.

Unathletic or large? All of the players making a living are athletic. And there are very few of the Stadler or Herron types that are successful these days. But yes, strength helps. And always has.

golfer07840 · May 15, 2017

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.

The ball has something to do with it. However, I'm willing to bet the loft on your 4I now is not the same as it was in 1989. I'm also certain the shafts aren't the same either.

It's a combination of things.

tnord · May 16, 2017

"forged blades" typically don't have the jacked up lofts of game improvement irons. yeah, the loft may be different by a couple degrees, resulting in a couple yards. but it's not much.

the dynamic gold iron shaft has been around since the 80s, and is still the most common offering in "players" irons, especially blades.

a blade iron basically hasn't changed in 100 years.

jslane57 · May 17, 2017

I was thinking about the argument about the more athletic player of today and reflecting on my own fitness over the years and golf. From my own experience, I've been extremely fit (running/biking/weight training/stretching) and I've been not so fit (as in 30 lbs overweight not doing much but golfing, and inherently not flexible) and I've always hit the ball the best and the furthest when in the middle. If I only cared about golf, I'd stay 15 lbs overweight and not stretch. Nor do I believe that the super fit professional golfer has better golf fitness than that of Jack, Arnie, or Johnny did in their primes. If you wan't to argue that the modern equipment better suits the super athlete, I'd buy that, but certainly don't buy that today's super athlete is more suited for golf. In fact, looking at the injuries these super fit athletes have, I'd argue just the opposite may the closer to the truth. Chalk it up for equipment...

new2g0lf · May 17, 2017

I was thinking about the argument about the more athletic player of today and reflecting on my own fitness over the years and golf. From my own experience, I've been extremely fit (running/biking/weight training/stretching) and I've been not so fit (as in 30 lbs overweight not doing much but golfing, and inherently not flexible) and I've always hit the ball the best and the furthest when in the middle. If I only cared about golf, I'd stay 15 lbs overweight and not stretch. Nor do I believe that the super fit professional golfer has better golf fitness than that of Jack, Arnie, or Johnny did in their primes. If you wan't to argue that the modern equipment better suits the super athlete, I'd buy that, but certainly don't buy that today's super athlete is more suited for golf. In fact, looking at the injuries these super fit athletes have, I'd argue just the opposite may the closer to the truth. Chalk it up for equipment...

Jack and Arnie might have been naturally strong but there's no way they were doing the training and workouts that the guys of today are.

Lodestone · May 17, 2017

I was thinking about the argument about the more athletic player of today and reflecting on my own fitness over the years and golf. From my own experience, I've been extremely fit (running/biking/weight training/stretching) and I've been not so fit (as in 30 lbs overweight not doing much but golfing, and inherently not flexible) and I've always hit the ball the best and the furthest when in the middle. If I only cared about golf, I'd stay 15 lbs overweight and not stretch. Nor do I believe that the super fit professional golfer has better golf fitness than that of Jack, Arnie, or Johnny did in their primes. If you wan't to argue that the modern equipment better suits the super athlete, I'd buy that, but certainly don't buy that today's super athlete is more suited for golf. In fact, looking at the injuries these super fit athletes have, I'd argue just the opposite may the closer to the truth. Chalk it up for equipment...

Jack and Arnie might have been naturally strong but there's no way they were doing the training and workouts that the guys of today are.

I think you may both be right. Training for maximum performance may increase performance, but may also increase stress on the parts of the body that don't really get stronger with the musculature. Ligaments, and cartilage. I think this is very obvious when you look at the number of Tommy John surgeries being done on college and professional pitchers.

I think the same thing is happening in golf now. Jack and Arnie were naturally strong, and they developed a good amount of "golf" strength, but they did it hitting golf balls, not lifting weights, or throwing medicine balls. I think we are finding out that an athlete can build enough strength in his musculature to put the ligaments and cartilage at risk.

tnord · May 31, 2017

some interesting books i ordered on my recent flights that highlight the issue;

The Anatomy of a Golf Course - Tom Doak

I can pull quotes from it, but it affirms the increased cost with current conditioning and length standards, as well as the increase in distance with modern equipment.

The Future of Golf - Geoff Shackelford

Goes in depth into the changing testing processes used by the USGA, how golf has reacted to increased distances, and how that impacts the average golfer.

I encourage everyone to educate themselves from people more involved and knowledgeable than any of us.

Andrew Bond of Glencoe · June 3, 2017

"forged blades" typically don't have the jacked up lofts of game improvement irons. yeah, the loft may be different by a couple degrees, resulting in a couple yards. but it's not much.

the dynamic gold iron shaft has been around since the 80s, and is still the most common offering in "players" irons, especially blades.

a blade iron basically hasn't changed in 100 years.

Your last sentence is more wrong than you can comprehend.

Blades have drastically changed in 100 years. I have iron sets dating back to the first Open Championship and here are just a couple of ways in which your last statement was in correct:

1) Not to dwell on it but the shafts have changed a lot; from Hickory to early steel shafts to the specialized steel shafts of today.

2) Swingweighting was non- existent. I have one set of early 1900s irons that are all swing weighted between E2 and E5. That is 10 swingweights more than a modern iron. They have measured Bobby Jones' Grand Slam clubs and they were insanely light. The lightest irons were swing weighted at B2 and the heaviest was a C8 I believe and not a single one of them had the same swing weight.

3) Blades today are not Blades they are muscle backs. Blades used to be real blades with ZERO forgiveness. The width of the top line and the sole were the same and they were thinner than modern MBs by half.

4) Lofts have changed a TON! Hogan's miracle 1 iron shot...a loft of a modern day 3 iron. Not so amazing of a shot when you call it a 3 iron.

North Butte · June 4, 2017

I have a set of McGregor blades from 1952. The Titleist MB's that Adams Scott plays (about as blade-y a blade as any today) would be far, far friendlier for a bad golfer to try to use. Just the clubhead for starters but also those old shafts and grips.

tnord · June 6, 2017

yes yes...i get it.....i have some blades from my grandfather and i can see that even those are different.

the point of my post was that the increased distance the guy who played blades forever was getting was not from the clubs, but from the ball. i don't know this for a fact, but i really don't think the True Temper Dynamic Gold shaft that is the standard for "muscle back/blades" has really changed since they came out with it.

North Butte · June 6, 2017

The amazing thing to me is how elite golfers stuck with those ridiculously bad rubber-band-wound balls for as long as they did. It's no surprise that as soon as the better, modern ball designs hit the market they almost instantly took over at all levels. Well, almost instant in golf terms. It did take the better part of a decade for the last holdouts to switch.