Mike Davis on Distance

[MaddMaxx]

6000 yards is plenty for us average players. You know you are not supposed to hit driver on every par 4 and par 5. The old courses were designed to test every part of your game.

As sir Nick said on tv last week. Driver wedge is boring golf. Where are the ball strikers that can hit a long iron? For that matter when is the last time you saw long irons?

I dont have anything against hybrids but pros shouldn't have to use forgiving clubs. They have no pride in their ball striking.

You think Hogan would have used a hybrid?

[Shilgy]

The problem is this.

 

The ball is exponentially longer for the long hitters. Compared to the old tech the pros are hitting it 40 yards longer. The average male maybe 10-20. The higher the clubhead speed the more the face flexes and the more the ProV launches with less spin.

The pros are hitting the ball 40 yards further. Like Outlier mentioned above they are also working out-not drinking at the bar. So do not give the new tech all of the blame.

 

My take is this: I just turned 40. I hit the ball further now, with less effort than I did when I was in college. I play maybe once a week and still carry a + handicap. I was considered a long hitter in college. Im now average when compared to the guys I'm playing against.

 

The game is flat out easier than it used to be. Dial back the ball. Dial back the courses we play.

 

And if I didn't have to hit "Enter" 1000 times a day I'd cut off my right pinky finger because I really don't know what to do with it when I take my grip. Be much easier without it.

 

 

preach..... im 37... and hit it much farther than when i was 20 with a 975d x100 combo.... and like you kids who i play with that grew up on 460cc drivers and todays ball can flat move it ... yet i could stick that 975d in their hands and watch them struggle instantly.. not all would.. but most for sure..

If they can hit a three wood they can hit your 975 just fine.

[QuigleyDU]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

[Doyle Hargraves]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

Billions of dollars altering courses, check. A golf ball that is both a distance ball and a spin ball does require less skill, check. Golf divers twice the size and even more forgiving as years ago, check. I understand loving the game the way it is today, but to say it's not easier is simply false...

 

Please provide proof that "billons" have been spent altering golf courses because the ball / equipment is too hot. That's pure baloney, top to bottom.

 

Less skill in today's top players? Doubtful. They are just as skilled as prior generations. They are also bigger, stronger, and in better shape.

[mark m]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

]

Nick Price 1993 = 273.9

Nick Price 2003 = 280.1

 

Looks like Phil did more than just switch equipment

 

Yes, As a casual observer, Phil started to swing faster. He to catch up with Tiger. As did these other two who are hall of fame players, big guys, and were capable of hitting it farther back in 1993. But they chose not to. Why? Risk/reward. Small sweet spot on the old small heads. Perhaps all 3 were playing a wound ball? My memory is Nick was playing a solid ball (Precept) - so that is perhaps why he did not gain as much? Price is also older than those guys.

 

Ernie 1993 = 270.5

Ernie 2003 = 303.3

 

VJ 1993 = 273.2

VJ 2003 = 301.9

 

It is both clubs and balls. If they went to 300cc max and same COR as wood, the average would go down as it would be riskier to swing as fast on a regular basis. You would pick your spots. They could also change ball standard from 120mph swing (320 carry max) to around 290-300 max carry. But that is unlikely. Your average Joe is the most against it even though he would be relatively better off. MacKenzie and others made the case in the 1920's and 30's. They changed the ball in 1931 to the larger (modern size) ball. Jones won the grand slam in 1930 with the small ball and was hitting drives over 300 yards often - eating up those shorter courses. That's why they talk about it. It has been done before.

[North Butte]

There are two kinds of people who pay money to watch someone play golf. One kind watches them swing as hard as they can and hit the ball prodigious distances while still somehow keeping it between the tree lines and says "OMG, those guys are amazing athletes". The other kind sees the same thing and says, "Hmmmpf. They ought to make them use clubs that they can't swing as fast. That'd teach them a lesson!".

[Doyle Hargraves]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

Billions of dollars altering courses, check. A golf ball that is both a distance ball and a spin ball does require less skill, check. Golf divers twice the size and even more forgiving as years ago, check. I understand loving the game the way it is today, but to say it's not easier is simply false...

 

I have to agree with you here. No question it's easier. Where I disagree with Mike Davis is in his assumption that "easier" is a bad thing for the game.

 

How is it easier?

 

Are you hitting 18 out of 18 greens and/or 14 out of 14 fairways on a regular basis?

 

Are the guys in your foursome tearing apart your local course with routine 64s and 66s?

 

Has your course been forced to put in "backward" yardage markers over the greens to compensate for tee shots flying over the green on par 4s and 5s?

[new2g0lf]

There are two kinds of people who pay money to watch someone play golf. One kind watches them swing as hard as they can and hit the ball prodigious distances while still somehow keeping it between the tree lines and says "OMG, those guys are amazing athletes". The other kind sees the same thing and says, "Hmmmpf. They ought to make them use clubs that they can't swing as fast. That'd teach them a lesson!".

I didn't know fans and spectators wanted to penalize professionals for being too good at their sport but it appears here there are some. Next time I watch Usain Bolt compete I'm going to suggest that he try running with New Balance cross trainers and orthotic inserts.

[Lodestone]

From the most recent Golf Digest:

 

"When I look back at the USGA over the decades, my biggest regret would be what has happened with distance. It's been the thing, probably more than any, that has been the most harmful to the game. Billions of dollars have been spent to alter golf courses - and for what?...

 

"Golf is the only sport I can think of where the equipment changes have continually affected the playing field and the size of it. That can't be the right thing."

 

"At a recent innovation symposium in Vancouver, I imagined a future that might have variable-distance golf balls, a concept that could be used under the current Rules of Golf. It sounds radical, but if you could have, for example, an 18-hole golf course sitting on, say, only 70 acres, it would take you only a couple of hours to play it. And, by the way, it would be cheaper to maintain because of less labor, less fuel for the mowers, less irrigation and fertilizer. You start to say, that makes sense. And in theory those cost savings could be passed along to the golfer."

 

"Beyond the distance, there also has been the issue of golf equipment making the game easier to play. Innovation has had so many wonderful benefits for the millions who play the game. We all love getting that new driver that flies longer and straighter. It's magical. On the other hand, innovation has de-skilled the game at the elite professional and amateur level."

 

Finally, an acknowledgement that the USGA and equipment manufacturers have made the game unnecessarily expensive and longer to play. But more importantly, highly skilled players are not as tested as formerly on their tee to green skill.

 

OMG. So much nonsense in these statements.

 

"Billons of dollars altering golf courses"..."highly skilled players not as tested"...."de-skilling the game"......

 

The stupidity of his comments make my head hurt.

Billions of dollars altering courses, check. A golf ball that is both a distance ball and a spin ball does require less skill, check. Golf divers twice the size and even more forgiving as years ago, check. I understand loving the game the way it is today, but to say it's not easier is simply false...

 

I have to agree with you here. No question it's easier. Where I disagree with Mike Davis is in his assumption that "easier" is a bad thing for the game.

 

How is it easier?

 

Are you hitting 18 out of 18 greens and/or 14 out of 14 fairways on a regular basis?

 

Are the guys in your foursome tearing apart your local course with routine 64s and 66s?

 

Has your course been forced to put in "backward" yardage markers over the greens to compensate for tee shots flying over the green on par 4s and 5s?

 

the fact that I still suck is not a valid argument. The reality is that I don't suck as bad as I would if I had to play the equipment that was available in 1975. I didn't say it was "easy"...I said it was "easier".

[jslane57]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

]

Nick Price 1993 = 273.9

Nick Price 2003 = 280.1

 

Looks like Phil did more than just switch equipment

 

Yes, As a casual observer, Phil started to swing faster. He to catch up with Tiger. As did these other two who are hall of fame players, big guys, and were capable of hitting it farther back in 1993. But they chose not to. Why? Risk/reward. Small sweet spot on the old small heads. Perhaps all 3 were playing a wound ball? My memory is Nick was playing a solid ball (Precept) - so that is perhaps why he did not gain as much? Price is also older than those guys.

 

Ernie 1993 = 270.5

Ernie 2003 = 303.3

 

VJ 1993 = 273.2

VJ 2003 = 301.9

 

It is both clubs and balls. If they went to 300cc max and same COR as wood, the average would go down as it would be riskier to swing as fast on a regular basis. You would pick your spots. They could also change ball standard from 120mph swing (320 carry max) to around 290-300 max carry. But that is unlikely. Your average Joe is the most against it even though he would be relatively better off. MacKenzie and others made the case in the 1920's and 30's. They changed the ball in 1931 to the larger (modern size) ball. Jones won the grand slam in 1930 with the small ball and was hitting drives over 300 yards often - eating up those shorter courses. That's why they talk about it. It has been done before.

These facts speak for bifurcation. Why? Because the modern equipment clearly helps the best golfers more than the regular golfer.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

 

And, what would be wrong with that? Clubs wouldn't wear evenly?

[North Butte]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

]

Nick Price 1993 = 273.9

Nick Price 2003 = 280.1

 

Looks like Phil did more than just switch equipment

 

Yes, As a casual observer, Phil started to swing faster. He to catch up with Tiger. As did these other two who are hall of fame players, big guys, and were capable of hitting it farther back in 1993. But they chose not to. Why? Risk/reward. Small sweet spot on the old small heads. Perhaps all 3 were playing a wound ball? My memory is Nick was playing a solid ball (Precept) - so that is perhaps why he did not gain as much? Price is also older than those guys.

 

Ernie 1993 = 270.5

Ernie 2003 = 303.3

 

VJ 1993 = 273.2

VJ 2003 = 301.9

 

It is both clubs and balls. If they went to 300cc max and same COR as wood, the average would go down as it would be riskier to swing as fast on a regular basis. You would pick your spots. They could also change ball standard from 120mph swing (320 carry max) to around 290-300 max carry. But that is unlikely. Your average Joe is the most against it even though he would be relatively better off. MacKenzie and others made the case in the 1920's and 30's. They changed the ball in 1931 to the larger (modern size) ball. Jones won the grand slam in 1930 with the small ball and was hitting drives over 300 yards often - eating up those shorter courses. That's why they talk about it. It has been done before.

These facts speak for bifurcation. Why? Because the modern equipment clearly helps the best golfers more than the regular golfer.

 

Again, the question is why is your ego so offended by the skill and athleticism of elite golfers that you can't stand to see them putting improved clubs to better use than a hacker can?

 

There is no other reason to tout "bifurcation" other than because you want the Rules to penalize the best players rather than let them demonstrate the full extent to which they are skilled and athletic.

 

I am no doubt a worse golfer than 90% of the people reading this thread. When I play golf alongside even a solid +1 handicapper it is quite obvious with every swing, in every part of the game how pitiful my ability is next to theirs. If one of those guys said "Here's, lets make it a fair comparison. I'll use hickory shafted clubs, an an out-of-round Balata ball and I'll swing one-handed." I can't imagine saying yes, let's do it.

[darredondo09]

I never understand the whole "distance has gotten out of control" argument. Assuming that today's pros hit it farther than those of the good old days, why does that really matter? Everyone says "The courses are now obsolete". It's not like guys are regularly shooting under 63 or anything, plus the guys on tour aren't playing against the course, they're playing against the field. If the whole field is using similarly advanced equipment, then any "advantage" that the new tech brings is essentially cancelled out. For example, stick a persimmon in the hands of DJ and Zach Johnson. Who here thinks that DJ's distance advantage has now disappeared?

 

They then say yeah well golf is easier now so less skill is required! That is untrue. Maybe different skill is required, but not less skill.

[Lodestone]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

 

Sounds to me like you'd have a lot more fun if you made the choice to go back to persimmon and balata. Which is allowed. If you can find balata. If not, just use really old lousy balls.

[Liquid_A_45]

every time these topics about distance come up i just shake my head and think why??. Distance is what keeps people from playing. they dont hit the ball far enough and wont move up tees. Most the courses i play i feel are too short. i end up hitting a lot of irons an 3 woods off the tee. if i didnt it would be driver and wedge for anything that was not a par 5 or 3.

 

"Won't move up tees" is distance the problem or ego?

[golfer07840]

I thought the ban on high COR drivers years ago was supposed to address the distance issue. What happened?

 

Pro golfers are athletes now. Blame the ball and equipment all you want, but 20 years ago a guy like Dustin Johnson wasn't paying golf. He was playing Baseball or basketball.

 

The workouts these guys do now (It's the Tiger affect) is just unreal.

 

The advanced methods of teaching on how to "create more lag to gain distance" is also a factor. Used to be, you had lag as a result of your downswing. Now they have figured out HOW to make even more lag so you can gain power. Now add that on top of the crazy workouts, and you get higher swing and ball speeds.

 

This isn't just about the ball, there are other factors.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I never understand the whole "distance has gotten out of control" argument. Assuming that today's pros hit it farther than those of the good old days, why does that really matter? Everyone says "The courses are now obsolete". It's not like guys are regularly shooting under 63 or anything, plus the guys on tour aren't playing against the course, they're playing against the field. If the whole field is using similarly advanced equipment, then any "advantage" that the new tech brings is essentially cancelled out. For example, stick a persimmon in the hands of DJ and Zach Johnson. Who here thinks that DJ's distance advantage has now disappeared?

 

They then say yeah well golf is easier now so less skill is required! That is untrue. Maybe different skill is required, but not less skill.

 

I couldn't agree more. I would even take it a step further to say everyone reading this has a chance to hit it closer than DJ from 150, but I'd bet next to none have a chance to out drive him. I think it takes much more skill to hit a drive 350 than it does to hit it close from 150, and the only ones worked up about it are those who can't do it. I'll pay attention when DJ or Luke List and the like, say the ball goes too far.

[golfer07840]

He's talking about 1% of 1% of players. That's what's frustrating. They claim to be looking out for everyone but how many people do we all know who are upset about how far they hit it? Probably none. How many players need a 7000yd course to challenge them? 1% of players?

 

As was posted, they got so offended at the scores Tiger might shoot that they spent "billions" altering courses, creating the very style of play they now lament. And they continue to use the massive courses because you can also get more attendance. Rather than tree lined courses where setting up grandstands is harder. The USGA and tournament committees are responsible for creating the distance chase, but they blame the equipment companies.

 

Players also train to hit the ball far. They do this because they have to. It's a barrier to entry BECAUSE of the USGA

 

If all food in the world was on 10 foot shelves. In 20 years do you think humans vertical leap will be higher on average? Of course it will, because you can either jump that high, train yourself to jump that high, or you'll die.

 

I couldn't care less for his crocodile tears. And find his lack of touch with the 99% of people that play the game concerning. Because "billions" never needed to be spent for them. And was only spent on the pro game out of protection of a number they saw as holy

 

I can not possibly like a post more than this one ^^^^^

[jslane57]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

]

Nick Price 1993 = 273.9

Nick Price 2003 = 280.1

 

Looks like Phil did more than just switch equipment

 

Yes, As a casual observer, Phil started to swing faster. He to catch up with Tiger. As did these other two who are hall of fame players, big guys, and were capable of hitting it farther back in 1993. But they chose not to. Why? Risk/reward. Small sweet spot on the old small heads. Perhaps all 3 were playing a wound ball? My memory is Nick was playing a solid ball (Precept) - so that is perhaps why he did not gain as much? Price is also older than those guys.

 

Ernie 1993 = 270.5

Ernie 2003 = 303.3

 

VJ 1993 = 273.2

VJ 2003 = 301.9

 

It is both clubs and balls. If they went to 300cc max and same COR as wood, the average would go down as it would be riskier to swing as fast on a regular basis. You would pick your spots. They could also change ball standard from 120mph swing (320 carry max) to around 290-300 max carry. But that is unlikely. Your average Joe is the most against it even though he would be relatively better off. MacKenzie and others made the case in the 1920's and 30's. They changed the ball in 1931 to the larger (modern size) ball. Jones won the grand slam in 1930 with the small ball and was hitting drives over 300 yards often - eating up those shorter courses. That's why they talk about it. It has been done before.

These facts speak for bifurcation. Why? Because the modern equipment clearly helps the best golfers more than the regular golfer.

 

Again, the question is why is your ego so offended by the skill and athleticism of elite golfers that you can't stand to see them putting improved clubs to better use than a hacker can?

 

There is no other reason to tout "bifurcation" other than because you want the Rules to penalize the best players rather than let them demonstrate the full extent to which they are skilled and athletic.

 

I am no doubt a worse golfer than 90% of the people reading this thread. When I play golf alongside even a solid +1 handicapper it is quite obvious with every swing, in every part of the game how pitiful my ability is next to theirs. If one of those guys said "Here's, lets make it a fair comparison. I'll use hickory shafted clubs, an an out-of-round Balata ball and I'll swing one-handed." I can't imagine saying yes, let's do it.

I do want the rules to penalize the best players. Why? So you can play the courses we play without moving up 2000 yards of tee-boxes. I also think you should be able to use clubs (like the long putter) that make the game more fun, where as I don't think the best players should be using such equipment when record books are on the line...

[new2g0lf]

 

Again, the question is why is your ego so offended by the skill and athleticism of elite golfers that you can't stand to see them putting improved clubs to better use than a hacker can?

 

There is no other reason to tout "bifurcation" other than because you want the Rules to penalize the best players rather than let them demonstrate the full extent to which they are skilled and athletic.

 

I am no doubt a worse golfer than 90% of the people reading this thread. When I play golf alongside even a solid +1 handicapper it is quite obvious with every swing, in every part of the game how pitiful my ability is next to theirs. If one of those guys said "Here's, lets make it a fair comparison. I'll use hickory shafted clubs, an an out-of-round Balata ball and I'll swing one-handed." I can't imagine saying yes, let's do it.

I do want the rules to penalize the best players. Why? So you can play the courses we play without moving up 2000 yards of tee-boxes. I also think you should be able to use clubs (like the long putter) that make the game more fun, where as I don't think the best players should be using such equipment when record books are on the line...

Don't worry about the tee boxes I play cause i don't. I pick the ones that are the right length for my game. Also with the exception of Bethpage Black I don't play the courses the pro's do. My home course is only 6500 yards from the black tees and I've never played from them.

 

I respect the athleticism of pro's and I want to see their skills showcased when they are in a tournament. As I said in an earlier post, if I want to watch people hit it close to the same length I do I'll watch the LPGA or Champions Tour.

[North Butte]

I respect the athleticism of pro's and I want to see their skills showcased when they are in a tournament. As I said in an earlier post, if I want to watch people hit it close to the same length I do I'll watch the LPGA or Champions Tour.

 

Plus on the Champions Tour lots of guys are as fat, creaky and out of shape as me.

 

Which come to think of it is probably why I *don't* watch Champions Tour!

[tnord]

distance is a problem...for us anyways.

 

original bunkering and doglegs were meant for drives of about 250yds. we've added length to bring some of those back in play ~2005, and there's some momentum building for adding more length yet again. i watched every day of the big 12 championship we hosted this year, most of the 2014 NCAA Championship, and some of the hazards and intended approach areas are no longer in play.

 

our defense is our greens, and the wind. but the greens have to be kept firm and fast enough that if there's more than about a 25mph wind, the balls risk rolling. some of the pin placements become impossible to get to, even with lob wedges, and play gets to be "marginal."

 

to me, one measure of a good test of golf, and a good golf course, is it requires you to hit every club in your bag. I believe it was MacKenzie that said a golfer should have to hit at least one wood as an approach to a green every round (not on a par 5).

 

Holes that used to be approached with mid-irons are now being approached with wedges. bunkering that used to force you to lay up or shape your tee shot are now just a target line to carry.

 

yes, you absolutely can make a new 6500yd golf course challenging for anyone, but that's starting with a clean slate. i think it would be a better game - and less expensive - if the courses were smaller, and not cut and rolled to within an inch of its life. i think the game would be more rewarding and enjoyable if you did something other than driver wedge driver wedge. i think the short game for average players that don't hit many GIRs would also become more manageable if they weren't concrete runways rolling a 13.

 

greens would also be less costly to maintain.

 

yes...i know that 99% of golfers don't even hit it 250....but 75% of those golfers that don't, think they do, and play too far back because they don't want to move too far forward of those tournament tees designed for the 1%. just like the weekend duffer emulates the pros with their pace of play, the duffer also wants to play as similar of a golf course to the pros as well. so don't think that if they could dial back the ball so that 7000yds for pros was "enough" that the weekend player (with a different ball that travels better) wouldn't feel better about playing 6k-6500.

 

yes, i know nobody is going to shed one single tear for the elite player or the elite golf course, but I'm with Jack - dial back the ball.

[llewol007]

Driving distance (pgatour.com):

 

Phil 1993 = 269.2

Phil 2003 = 306.0

 

That's the time frame that matters. The horse has left the barn.

]

Nick Price 1993 = 273.9

Nick Price 2003 = 280.1

 

Looks like Phil did more than just switch equipment

 

Yes, As a casual observer, Phil started to swing faster. He to catch up with Tiger. As did these other two who are hall of fame players, big guys, and were capable of hitting it farther back in 1993. But they chose not to. Why? Risk/reward. Small sweet spot on the old small heads. Perhaps all 3 were playing a wound ball? My memory is Nick was playing a solid ball (Precept) - so that is perhaps why he did not gain as much? Price is also older than those guys.

 

Ernie 1993 = 270.5

Ernie 2003 = 303.3

 

VJ 1993 = 273.2

VJ 2003 = 301.9

 

It is both clubs and balls. If they went to 300cc max and same COR as wood, the average would go down as it would be riskier to swing as fast on a regular basis. You would pick your spots. They could also change ball standard from 120mph swing (320 carry max) to around 290-300 max carry. But that is unlikely. Your average Joe is the most against it even though he would be relatively better off. MacKenzie and others made the case in the 1920's and 30's. They changed the ball in 1931 to the larger (modern size) ball. Jones won the grand slam in 1930 with the small ball and was hitting drives over 300 yards often - eating up those shorter courses. That's why they talk about it. It has been done before.

These facts speak for bifurcation. Why? Because the modern equipment clearly helps the best golfers more than the regular golfer.

Not true. Remember everybody has access to the same equipment. These guys are the cream of the crop. A lot can be said about hitting the center of the face of a driver which allows your ball to travel far. When you are accurate in your contact, you can swing harder which makes your ball Fly further. No magic to it.

[Shilgy]

Again, the question is why is your ego so offended by the skill and athleticism of elite golfers that you can't stand to see them putting improved clubs to better use than a hacker can?

 

There is no other reason to tout "bifurcation" other than because you want the Rules to penalize the best players rather than let them demonstrate the full extent to which they are skilled and athletic.

 

I am no doubt a worse golfer than 90% of the people reading this thread. When I play golf alongside even a solid +1 handicapper it is quite obvious with every swing, in every part of the game how pitiful my ability is next to theirs. If one of those guys said "Here's, lets make it a fair comparison. I'll use hickory shafted clubs, an an out-of-round Balata ball and I'll swing one-handed." I can't imagine saying yes, let's do it.

I do want the rules to penalize the best players. Why? So you can play the courses we play without moving up 2000 yards of tee-boxes. I also think you should be able to use clubs (like the long putter) that make the game more fun, where as I don't think the best players should be using such equipment when record books are on the line...

Don't worry about the tee boxes I play cause i don't. I pick the ones that are the right length for my game. Also with the exception of Bethpage Black I don't play the courses the pro's do. My home course is only 6500 yards from the black tees and I've never played from them.

 

I respect the athleticism of pro's and I want to see their skills showcased when they are in a tournament. As I said in an earlier post, if I want to watch people hit it close to the same length I do I'll watch the LPGA or Champions Tour.

You are already a long hitter if you are as long as the Champions Tour guys.

http://www.pgatour.com/champions/stats/stat.101.2016.html

[new2g0lf]

Again, the question is why is your ego so offended by the skill and athleticism of elite golfers that you can't stand to see them putting improved clubs to better use than a hacker can?

 

There is no other reason to tout "bifurcation" other than because you want the Rules to penalize the best players rather than let them demonstrate the full extent to which they are skilled and athletic.

 

I am no doubt a worse golfer than 90% of the people reading this thread. When I play golf alongside even a solid +1 handicapper it is quite obvious with every swing, in every part of the game how pitiful my ability is next to theirs. If one of those guys said "Here's, lets make it a fair comparison. I'll use hickory shafted clubs, an an out-of-round Balata ball and I'll swing one-handed." I can't imagine saying yes, let's do it.

I do want the rules to penalize the best players. Why? So you can play the courses we play without moving up 2000 yards of tee-boxes. I also think you should be able to use clubs (like the long putter) that make the game more fun, where as I don't think the best players should be using such equipment when record books are on the line...

Don't worry about the tee boxes I play cause i don't. I pick the ones that are the right length for my game. Also with the exception of Bethpage Black I don't play the courses the pro's do. My home course is only 6500 yards from the black tees and I've never played from them.

 

I respect the athleticism of pro's and I want to see their skills showcased when they are in a tournament. As I said in an earlier post, if I want to watch people hit it close to the same length I do I'll watch the LPGA or Champions Tour.

You are already a long hitter if you are as long as the Champions Tour guys.

http://www.pgatour.c...t.101.2016.html

I was referring to the bottom 20%

[golfer07840]

I live in Maine and as far as I know not 1 golf course has been alternated or lengthened to address improved equipment. In fact there are probably just a handful in all of New England. There are some built in the last 20 years that are 7,000+ yards, but most courses here are under 6500 yards and every bit as challenging as 99% of the people who play them need.

Equipment gains have probably had a significant benefit for less than 5% of the golfing population when it comes to scoring. Even the best, longest, most forgiving equipment won't magically make you a single digit handicap.

The pros in any sport play a game that doesn't relate to amateurs. If that bothers you better turn off the TV.

 

Outside of a par 4 being made into a par 5 at one course here in northern NJ (done in 1991, long before the ball was an "issue"), I do not believe any course here has been lengthened to combat all of the WRX pros who seem to think golf has become "Too easy".

 

One of the courses I play, from the tips is only 6,816 yards (73.5/139), and most recently Jesper Parnavik played it about 3 years ago, and "...hated it, had nowhere to put the ball..." shot 72. Bottom line, couldn't bomb the ball. Course was built in 1992.

 

So IMO, if you shorten the courses and make the fairways tighter, these guys may have a tougher time than on a wide open 7,500 yard course.

 

Do I hit the ball further now than when I started to play back in 1995? Sure. But I'd like to think it's because I'm stronger and more efficient with my swing. Sure my Callaway driver head is a big bigger than the Lynx Boom Boom driver I had back then, but to be honest, I used to hit that as far as I do now, just not as consistently. Is the ball I'm using now (I go back and forth from a Wilson Duo, or an NXT) better than the Titleist HP2 Tour ball I was using then? Maybe?

 

I certainly don't feel as though golf has become "Too easy" like some have stated.

[RichieHunt]

I always thought it was stupid from day 1 when I heard of 'Tiger proofing' Augusta by making it longer. The only holes that would potentially help shorter hitters is if the par-5's were not likely reachable. Other than that, it provides a huge advantage to a bomber. Why they thought differently is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

RH

[jayman2982]

I assume most of us are not hurt by the distance the ball travels, we are talking about .1 percent of golfers. I predict something to the effect of certain racing tiers where everyone has the same engine, transmission etc. to truly gauge who the better driver is. The only way the USGA can "protect" the game is by doing something similar to that. Manufactures will hate to have their technology limited but something in my opinion needs happen. Golf I believe is in its prime today, the people playing are more athletic and the equipment more precise. The way of playing driver to wedge 450 par four is going to be the norm. That to me is boring.

 

Sure, they're are only a few players maybe a dozen or so that can do it now, I do believe that trend will be more the norm in 10-20 years. People will still watch golf for sure, we are mouth breathing morons that enjoy someone hitting it 700 yards as opposed to hitting more artistic shots. Yes it takes skill to hit it far with control, I'm not insinuating that it doesn't. But if you think bomb and gouge is the way the game is supposed to be played then play your local course from the most forward tees. ( not talking to those who already do;)

 

Changing the ball will still keep the longer hitters longer, no $hit! What it will do is make the longer hitters hit something more than wedge into long par fours. Do this and grow the rough heavier and more penal, get rid of rock hard fairways and then you will have a truer test of a players ability. Those who truly love golf ( ya know the ones that don't only like tiger)..... will still watch golf.

 

The reason most of struggle on the course we play is because we hit it to the spots the course was designed to hit into, plain and simple. The longer hitters bypass those spots. I do all the time. I am not long by any means, the course I play is 7k from the back and I still hit irons and less than driver on many tees. My partners all hit drivers from the same spots I hit irons. I could hit driver and be much closer but my wedge game is a $hit show. If it was better than the aforementioned show I would shoot much better scores, why, because a 58* in is much easier than 8 iron.

 

To each his own on what they deem as entertaining golf. If there is a "pro ball" it will have no effect on 99.9999999 percent of us golfers, it will have an effect on 100% of courses though.

 

Just my throw away opinion

 

jay

[jslane57]

I always thought it was stupid from day 1 when I heard of 'Tiger proofing' Augusta by making it longer. The only holes that would potentially help shorter hitters is if the par-5's were not likely reachable. Other than that, it provides a huge advantage to a bomber. Why they thought differently is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

RH

No way to keep the long hitters from winning is there, length is just too big an advantage. Even on shorter shots, club head speed makes them easier to control the ball. It was never about keeping the long hitters from winning. It was about preserving par, and keeping Tiger from breaking every record ever established in golf. And it worked. Tiger will not break Jack's record. Par still is a good score in the majors. It just made golf ridiculous along the way...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I always thought it was stupid from day 1 when I heard of 'Tiger proofing' Augusta by making it longer. The only holes that would potentially help shorter hitters is if the par-5's were not likely reachable. Other than that, it provides a huge advantage to a bomber. Why they thought differently is beyond me.

 

 

 

 

RH

t was about preserving par, and keeping Tiger from breaking every record ever established in golf. And it worked. Tiger will not break Jack's record. Par still is a good score in the majors.

 

Which is why it was stupid. Gotta love it when a bunch of carb-faced "protectors of the game" say, "Hey, Tiger, you're too good. You might break Nicklaus's records, and we can't have that, so we're gonna trick this bi**h out to try to make it harder for you to break all the records. Mmmkay? See you out there, sport!"