Erin Hills too Easy?

Ashley Schaeffer · June 19, 2017

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

For the same reason that NASCAR has restrictor plates to keep the cars from going too fast but they don't insist that all the drivers race Model Ts. It's not all or nothing. There can be a middle ground.
NASCAR did it for safety because technology was allowing the cars to go to fast for the tracks they raced on.

Golf is at a cross roads, they either need to accept the restrictions they've placed on equipment and live with the results or admit they allowed equipment to get out of control and dial some of it back, most likely the ball.

Career records are likely safer today than 20 years ago because equipment has normalized golfers to some level. I can't imagine someone winning more tournaments than Tiger or Snead or more Majors than Jack or even Tiger.

The records that are at risk are lowest score in a round and lowest score for a tournament. Are those records that sacred that it's worth stepping back in time to protect? I'd say no but I guess some purists believe they are.

I think the self-proclaimed "purists" aren't even worried about scoring records. It appears they are most worried about people hitting three woods farther than the purists think they should.

As an aside, I'm on the cusp of declining distance given my age. I honestly hope I don't ever post on an Internet forum talking about how, back in my day, we all had to play with Stratas and 975Ds, and the then modern guys would've never been able to compete in the early 2000s.

heavy_hitter · June 20, 2017

It was refreshing to see a US Open won at -16. I can't stand the same USGA setups year after year. That is the only week all year long someone plays golf that way. Erin Hills easy? Who cares? Everyone has to play the same course.

The other 30 PGA tour events each year that are won at -16 are not enough for you?

This was a piece of s***.

I'm not a Mike Davis fan but the USGA caught a bit of bad luck with all the rain they had. Had it not rained so much the fairways and greens would have been nasty firm and fast and it would been a much different course. You can't control mother nature.

Sorry, weather wouldn't have changed much at all.. maybe -10 or -9. Everyone said the 15mph wind on Sunday would slow guys down. It did nothing. This was an easy US Open setup. There's no polishing this turd. Like others have said, many US Opens get drenched. They don't score like this.

Sigh... Some people just don't understand.

ratspros · June 20, 2017

How is being only 4 strokes easier then Oakmont, 3 shots easier then Chambers Bay and 1 shot harder then Pinehurst make Erin Hills too easy?

Man you people are obsessed with Par. Was Oakmont on the verge of being to east? Must've been with only being 1 stroke a round harder.
Bad comparison. Try the last par 72 US Open at Pebble Beach in 1992 - winning score there was 285 versus 272 at EH.

Exactly. And one must be obtuse to not get it. If a U.S. Open course is setup as a par 72, and they want par to be the benchmark for scoring, then the final winning score should be ... HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS! ... 288. See how that works?

So let's follow this line of thought. If this year's final score was, say, 280 ... and a previous year's (on a par 70 course) was also 280, which layout allowed for more birdies? It's really not that difficult to understand, folks, even though some people on this board seem to have a problem with it.

The fact is - par is very much a significant concept. It is built into golf, and always has been. When golf course architects build their designs they assign a number of par to every hole. A par 3 is meant to be played in ... you guessed it ... three shots. If it generally plays in 2.85 shots it is considered easy, and if it is generally played in 3.5 shots it is considered difficult. This stuff is elementary for people who actually understand golf and have a brain.

HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS, the USGA wants a stern test of golf. You seem to want a par winning score as being the bench mark.

HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS, call a par 5 a par 4 at Erin Hills (pick one I don't care which one) like they did at Oakmont and many other courses and your relative to par score is now four shots closer. Does that make you happier?

HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS, golf isn't about birdies, pars, etc. It's about taking as few shots in a round as possible.

HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS a tournament is about who takes the least amount of strokes in 72 holes of competition as design by the tournament committee. If one competition yields a winning score of 272 (Erin hills) and one yields a winning score of 276 (Oakmont). Yes we can say Erin hills played easier but I'd need to see a score a lot lower then one stroke a round to get on this too easy bus you par obsessed people are on.

jslane57 · June 20, 2017

HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS! LOL.

2putttom · June 20, 2017

I'd love to play this DUMP. Wider fairways than any course within 50 miles of me. Bring it on.

So, do you have a link to a poll/survey saying that

"A very tiny percentage of people ever whine that the course is unfair. Vast majority of people, including the fringe fan that doesn't watch every tourney unless there's something interesting about it LOVE seeing these guys challenged and tortured."

Or not?

Right here.

"Some perspective is always useful when viewing these numbers, given that they don’t include online streaming or other methods of review. Still, it’s impossible to draw any conclusions other than the idea that golf on TV is in desperate need of both star power and a competitive finish; Sunday’s closer at Erin Hills, unfortunately for Fox, had neither"

Soooo.... the top golfers couldn't hack it, missed the cut and viewing fell off?

Joe85 · June 20, 2017

What's most troubling to me was all the +500 par FOURs that the masters seemingly just CUT...UP.

Weren't there like 5 "par 4s" that were 500+, not to mention several that were just shy of 500??

How the hell do these guys just cut the course up so bad when it was soooo long?

Someone (Fowler, Thomas??) hit a 3 wood and 3 iron into a 680 yard par 5.

I'm just confused how that is. Justin Thomas and Rickie Fowler (particularly the latter) are not at all huge specimens.

ThinkingPlus · June 20, 2017

Firm tight fairways and favorable mounding. I saw 40 - 50 yards of runout quite often. This was despite the bit of rain they had before and during the event.

Shilgy · June 20, 2017

What's most troubling to me was all the +500 par FOURs that the masters seemingly just CUT...UP.

Weren't there like 5 "par 4s" that were 500+, not to mention several that were just shy of 500??

How the hell do these guys just cut the course up so bad when it was soooo long?

Someone (Fowler, Thomas??) hit a 3 wood and 3 iron into a 680 yard par 5.

I'm just confused how that is. Justin Thomas and Rickie Fowler (particularly the latter) are not at all huge specimens.

Saying that someone hit 3wood 3 iron into a long par 5 is like talking about how Jack hit a 363 yard drive or whatever in a driving contest. It does NOT mean they can do that as the norm. Conditions make that possible as you well know. Has little to nothing to do with the equipment out of control any more than the idea we should go back to persimmon because Jack hit it 40 yards longer than the boys of today.

Joe85 · June 20, 2017

Saying that someone hit 3wood 3 iron into a long par 5 is like talking about how Jack hit a 363 yard drive or whatever in a driving contest. It does NOT mean they can do that as the norm. Conditions make that possible as you well know. Has little to nothing to do with the equipment out of control any more than the idea we should go back to persimmon because Jack hit it 40 yards longer than the boys of today.

It's never happeend before. Not even John Daly hit a comparable par 5 with a 3 wood and long iron, that I can recall.

And if JD did ever do it, just begs the question even more how a flyweight like Fowler or Thomas could do it - the questions become about equipment, course set up (too easy), ball.

stickner · June 20, 2017

What's most troubling to me was all the +500 par FOURs that the masters seemingly just CUT...UP.

Weren't there like 5 "par 4s" that were 500+, not to mention several that were just shy of 500??

How the hell do these guys just cut the course up so bad when it was soooo long?

Someone (Fowler, Thomas??) hit a 3 wood and 3 iron into a 680 yard par 5.

I'm just confused how that is. Justin Thomas and Rickie Fowler (particularly the latter) are not at all huge specimens.

Swing analysis technology has helped professional golfers to

Understand their movement
Make it more efficient
Maximize clubhead speed

Golfers of today are MUCH more physically fit.

Golfers of today have technology (clubs and balls) as well as agronomy that results in MUCH longer distances.

You don't have to be 6 foot 5 and 250 pounds to generate 125+ mph clubhead speed.

HighSpeedScene · June 20, 2017

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

For the same reason that NASCAR has restrictor plates to keep the cars from going too fast but they don't insist that all the drivers race Model Ts. It's not all or nothing. There can be a middle ground.
NASCAR did it for safety because technology was allowing the cars to go to fast for the tracks they raced on.

Golf is at a cross roads, they either need to accept the restrictions they've placed on equipment and live with the results or admit they allowed equipment to get out of control and dial some of it back, most likely the ball.

Career records are likely safer today than 20 years ago because equipment has normalized golfers to some level. I can't imagine someone winning more tournaments than Tiger or Snead or more Majors than Jack or even Tiger.

The records that are at risk are lowest score in a round and lowest score for a tournament. Are those records that sacred that it's worth stepping back in time to protect? I'd say no but I guess some purists believe they are.

I think the self-proclaimed "purists" aren't even worried about scoring records. It appears they are most worried about people hitting three woods farther than the purists think they should.

As an aside, I'm on the cusp of declining distance given my age. I honestly hope I don't ever post on an Internet forum talking about how, back in my day, we all had to play with Stratas and 975Ds, and the then modern guys would've never been able to compete in the early 2000s.

Hey, I loved the Strata!

grm24 · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9

Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16

Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

stickner · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

Please don't bring math, logic, and reason into this discussion. It confuses some people.

grm24 · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

Please don't bring math, logic, and reason into this discussion. It confuses some people.

LOL! Guilty as charged. :taunt:

Joe85 · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

1. The Tiger Woods route was a total anomaly. Historic in so many ways. The next best after him (iir) was Jimenez, at about +3. That means the ENTIRE FIELD was over par, except for one player. It's possibly the greatest tournament ever played, for one week at a major, for any player that has ever played the game.

2. I didn't like any of those other times that players were way under par. Rory at Congressional was a total bastardization of records. Hated it.

3. how many records were shattered this week? Record low? check. Record number under par? check. Record number double digit under par? check.

We could go on.

Shilgy · June 21, 2017

1. The Tiger Woods route was a total anomaly. Historic in so many ways. The next best after him (iir) was Jimenez, at about +3. That means the ENTIRE FIELD was over par, except for one player. It's possibly the greatest tournament ever played, for one week at a major, for any player that has ever played the game.

2. I didn't like any of those other times that players were way under par. Rory at Congressional was a total bastardization of records. Hated it.

3. how many records were shattered this week? Record low? check. Record number under par? check. Record number double digit under par? check.

We could go on.

Joe-scoring records in golf are stupid! There-I said it. Mike Souchak held the record for 46 years. He played football for Duke and this is what he had to say.

875]

Asked about his record, Souchak said in an interview with

PGATour.com

in 2007 that he was surprised that it had stood as long as it did, given the improvements in golf courses, equipment and golf balls — “especially the golf ball.”

875]

“I just think that the players are going to keep going lower and lower,” he said.

875]

Players today, he said, “are more athletic than we were.”

Even by the standards of the day it was very short. This is the current scorecard.

Shilgy · June 21, 2017

Point being how can you compare scoring records at different courses-different years-different yardages-different weather and think there should be any correlation? Though I am sure the fans of the old dead ball era in baseball lamented the changes in their game as well. I am sure there were cries that a ball over the fence should be an out like out of bounds in golf. Not something to be celebrated.

youdamantiger · June 21, 2017

What's most troubling to me was all the +500 par FOURs that the masters seemingly just CUT...UP.

Weren't there like 5 "par 4s" that were 500+, not to mention several that were just shy of 500??

How the hell do these guys just cut the course up so bad when it was soooo long?

Someone (Fowler, Thomas??) hit a 3 wood and 3 iron into a 680 yard par 5.

I'm just confused how that is. Justin Thomas and Rickie Fowler (particularly the latter) are not at all huge specimens.

Swing analysis technology has helped professional golfers to
Understand their movement
Make it more efficient
Maximize clubhead speed
Golfers of today are MUCH more physically fit.

Golfers of today have technology (clubs and balls) as well as agronomy that results in MUCH longer distances.

You don't have to be 6 foot 5 and 250 pounds to generate 125+ mph clubhead speed.

That's really all you needed to say. These guys hit it insane distances because they have the equipment that allows it. Body type and physical fitness isn't much of a factor in golf. I don't think anyone would argue that JB Holmes, John Daly, or Patrick Reed are "physically fit." One needn't point at just the fat guys either. Just because you're skinny doesn't mean you're fit. I honestly don't know the regimen of a Thomas or Fowler (or if they even have one) but i think it's pretty empirical that being physically fit isn't really that necessary in golf. Rory was longer when he was chubby, Tiger was longer when he was a stringbean. Freddie was one of the longest on Tour till Daly came along and probably the only time Couples lifted a weight was to look behind it for the remote. I don't think it hurts you in golf to be physically fit, but it doesn't seem to help you all that much either.

HighSpeedScene · June 21, 2017

Where is the line where a course is now considered "too" easy for the us open?

Or is it like justice Potter and obscenity: can't describe it, but know it when I see it?

I would be fine with the characterization of the course as "easier" than some other us open courses...but I've no idea what "too easy" means.

grm24 · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

1. The Tiger Woods route was a total anomaly. Historic in so many ways. The next best after him (iir) was Jimenez, at about +3. That means the ENTIRE FIELD was over par, except for one player. It's possibly the greatest tournament ever played, for one week at a major, for any player that has ever played the game.

2. I didn't like any of those other times that players were way under par. Rory at Congressional was a total bastardization of records. Hated it.

3. how many records were shattered this week? Record low? check. Record number under par? check. Record number double digit under par? check.

We could go on.

Doesn't matter how many scoring records were broken. Lowest score regardless of "par" designation still wins. Koepkas total was not even the lowest in US Open history. If Erin Hills was changed to a par 70 on the scorecard as the USGA has done many time and Koepka only finished 8 under there wouldn't be nearly the amount of whining that is going on. The USGA is criticized if they change a course to a par 70 and if they leave it at a par 72 people complain about that as well.

Par is a concept. Lowest score regardless of par wins. Koepkas winning total was not out of line with other winning scores in US Open history. And like Rory @ Congressional the scoring @ Erin Hills was impacted by the weather. Even the scoring @ Oakmont last year was impacted by the heavy storms the first day.

youdamantiger · June 21, 2017

Where is the line where a course is now considered "too" easy for the us open?

Or is it like justice Potter and obscenity: can't describe it, but know it when I see it?

I would be fine with the characterization of the course as "easier" than some other us open courses...but I've no idea what "too easy" means.

I don't know how exactly you can set up a course in the modern era that will blunt modern equipment. I'd be really interested to know what the dispersion rates are for drives today versus even 20 years ago. My suspicion is it's a lot less today and it's because of the efficacy of modern equipment. If a guy can step up to almost every tee and just blast away with his driver with no fear of it going too far offline, I don't know how you combat that except to cut 30 yard fairways. It's not only the distance that's crazy these days, but how forgiving the equipment is as well.

sekrah · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

Please don't bring math, logic, and reason into this discussion. It confuses some people.

The guy made a terrible argument, and you endorsed the terrible argument. Well done.

Comparing Woods and Kaymer's final score to Koepka's is peak cluelessness when it comes to analyzing how easy each Open was.

sekrah · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

1. The Tiger Woods route was a total anomaly. Historic in so many ways. The next best after him (iir) was Jimenez, at about +3. That means the ENTIRE FIELD was over par, except for one player. It's possibly the greatest tournament ever played, for one week at a major, for any player that has ever played the game.

2. I didn't like any of those other times that players were way under par. Rory at Congressional was a total bastardization of records. Hated it.

3. how many records were shattered this week? Record low? check. Record number under par? check. Record number double digit under par? check.

We could go on.
Doesn't matter how many scoring records were broken. Lowest score regardless of "par" designation still wins. Koepkas total was not even the lowest in US Open history. If Erin Hills was changed to a par 70 on the scorecard as the USGA has done many time and Koepka only finished 8 under there wouldn't be nearly the amount of whining that is going on. The USGA is criticized if they change a course to a par 70 and if they leave it at a par 72 people complain about that as well.

Par is a concept. Lowest score regardless of par wins. Koepkas winning total was not out of line with other winning scores in US Open history. And like Rory @ Congressional the scoring @ Erin Hills was impacted by the weather. Even the scoring @ Oakmont last year was impacted by the heavy storms the first day.

This was the easiest layout in U.S. Open history and it's not debatable. Keep trying to flap your arms to fly though, it's fun to watch.

KyGolf · June 21, 2017

Ask Rory, Jason, Dustin, Justin and Henrik how easy it was to hit those fairways with the modern equipment.

Joe85 · June 21, 2017

Martin Kaymers winning total at Pinehurst in 2014 - 271 (Par 70) -9
Brooks Koepka winning total at Erin Hills in 2017 - 272 (Par 72) -16
Tiger Woods winning total at Pebble Beach in 2000 - 272 (Par 71) -12

3 previous US Opens (2014-2016) average winning total - 274

Funny how the USGA changing or actually keeping a courses PAR number skews a lot of perspectives.

1. The Tiger Woods route was a total anomaly. Historic in so many ways. The next best after him (iir) was Jimenez, at about +3. That means the ENTIRE FIELD was over par, except for one player. It's possibly the greatest tournament ever played, for one week at a major, for any player that has ever played the game.

2. I didn't like any of those other times that players were way under par. Rory at Congressional was a total bastardization of records. Hated it.

3. how many records were shattered this week? Record low? check. Record number under par? check. Record number double digit under par? check.

We could go on.
Doesn't matter how many scoring records were broken. Lowest score regardless of "par" designation still wins. Koepkas total was not even the lowest in US Open history. If Erin Hills was changed to a par 70 on the scorecard as the USGA has done many time and Koepka only finished 8 under there wouldn't be nearly the amount of whining that is going on. The USGA is criticized if they change a course to a par 70 and if they leave it at a par 72 people complain about that as well.

Par is a concept. Lowest score regardless of par wins. Koepkas winning total was not out of line with other winning scores in US Open history. And like Rory @ Congressional the scoring @ Erin Hills was impacted by the weather. Even the scoring @ Oakmont last year was impacted by the heavy storms the first day.

Where is the line where a course is now considered "too" easy for the us open?

Or is it like justice Potter and obscenity: can't describe it, but know it when I see it?

I would be fine with the characterization of the course as "easier" than some other us open courses...but I've no idea what "too easy" means.

I don't know how exactly you can set up a course in the modern era that will blunt modern equipment. I'd be really interested to know what the dispersion rates are for drives today versus even 20 years ago. My suspicion is it's a lot less today and it's because of the efficacy of modern equipment. If a guy can step up to almost every tee and just blast away with his driver with no fear of it going too far offline, I don't know how you combat that except to cut 30 yard fairways. It's not only the distance that's crazy these days, but how forgiving the equipment is as well.

You have to ask?

Even I could hit a 60 yard wide fairway.

stickner · June 21, 2017

Where is the line where a course is now considered "too" easy for the us open?

Or is it like justice Potter and obscenity: can't describe it, but know it when I see it?

I would be fine with the characterization of the course as "easier" than some other us open courses...but I've no idea what "too easy" means.

I don't know how exactly you can set up a course in the modern era that will blunt modern equipment. I'd be really interested to know what the dispersion rates are for drives today versus even 20 years ago. My suspicion is it's a lot less today and it's because of the efficacy of modern equipment. If a guy can step up to almost every tee and just blast away with his driver with no fear of it going too far offline, I don't know how you combat that except to cut 30 yard fairways. It's not only the distance that's crazy these days, but how forgiving the equipment is as well.

Driving accuracy today is less than it was in the past

I looked at driving accuracy in 1980, 1981 and 1982 (oldest years for stats on PGATOUR.com).

I compared that to 2017, 2016, 2015.

80-81-82: 63.2% fairways hit (359,748 fairways hit out of 568,973 possible fairways)

15-16-17: 60.9% fairways hit (335,075 fairways hit out of 549,907 possible fairways)

youdamantiger · June 21, 2017

Ask Rory, Jason, Dustin, Justin and Henrik how easy it was to hit those fairways with the modern equipment.

You could ask Brooks, Justin, Brian, Tommy, and Hideki the same question and get a different answer. Not sure what your point is. Pointing to five guys who played horribly is not a compelling argument as to the difficulty of a course. You think those guys would have been closer to the fairway with persimmon and balata? If you can't hit a modern driver and ball straight you sure as hell won't hit a driver and ball from 30 years ago straight.

Shilgy · June 21, 2017

Ask Rory, Jason, Dustin, Justin and Henrik how easy it was to hit those fairways with the modern equipment.

You could ask Brooks, Justin, Brian, Tommy, and Hideki the same question and get a different answer. Not sure what your point is. Pointing to five guys who played horribly is not a compelling argument as to the difficulty of a course. You think those guys would have been closer to the fairway with persimmon and balata? If you can't hit a modern driver and ball straight you sure as hell won't hit a driver and ball from 30 years ago straight.

With the ball traveling 40-60 yards shorter I would say that yes, the odds are they would have hit more fairways with the old equipment. It would be like hitting hybrid off every tee. The old stuff is not harder to hit, it's just shorter.

And yes I played it for 20+ years.

youdamantiger · June 21, 2017

Driving accuracy today is less than it was in the past

I looked at driving accuracy in 1980, 1981 and 1982 (oldest years for stats on PGATOUR.com).

I compared that to 2017, 2016, 2015.

80-81-82: 63.2% fairways hit (359,748 fairways hit out of 568,973 possible fairways)

15-16-17: 60.9% fairways hit (335,075 fairways hit out of 549,907 possible fairways)

Hmmm...I would have never guessed that. Of course, it's not completely apples to apples since there are more variables to consider such as the width of the fairways now vs then, how often the players hit driver vs 3 wood but still, I didn't expect that result.

youdamantiger · June 21, 2017

Ask Rory, Jason, Dustin, Justin and Henrik how easy it was to hit those fairways with the modern equipment.

You could ask Brooks, Justin, Brian, Tommy, and Hideki the same question and get a different answer. Not sure what your point is. Pointing to five guys who played horribly is not a compelling argument as to the difficulty of a course. You think those guys would have been closer to the fairway with persimmon and balata? If you can't hit a modern driver and ball straight you sure as hell won't hit a driver and ball from 30 years ago straight.
With the ball traveling 40-60 yards shorter I would say that yes, the odds are they would have hit more fairways with the old equipment. It would be like hitting hybrid off every tee. The old stuff is not harder to hit, it's just shorter.
And yes I played it for 20+ years.

This was just the first hit that came up on Googe. I'm sure the others say pretty much the same thing:

"2.There were no great improvements in accuracy from 1940-1990. About two-thirds of the total improvement came with the current titanium drivers."

https://www.milesofgolf.com/vintage-vs-technology/

Cliff's Notes version: Modern Titanium drivers are longer and more accurate.