Why haven't PGA Tour scores come down w/ tech

[Ashley Schaeffer]

So, what have learned? That the courses are longer and that players have better equipment to hit it further? Anythong else than that? Do they hit a 150 yd approach shot better now?

 

No, just higher. Somebody needs to do something about it. Those poor designers didn't design those courses to be mocked by players hitting it further than they thought people could hit it back in 1930. Stop the madness already.

[RBImGuy]

Reading through the thread on PR's ancient irons at the Masters got me thinking. Why haven't scores come down with all the new tech? Seems like going from persimmon to steel to titanium to 460cc titanium with movable weights and $1000 graphite shafts along with Trackman and ProV1s and all the other tech through out the bag would make scores come down. Plus these guys now are bigger and stronger, in better shape and have had coaches and psychiatrists and all the rest since they were kids. So why haven't scores come down much? Harder courses? Faster greens? Pins more tucked?

 

Just seems strange that 50 years ago with persimmon and butter knives and whatever they used for balls guys could shoot 65 and today with all the tech that same 65 on the same course is a good score.

 

Or am I totally wrong and scores have come down?

 

More tour players hit 290+ yards than they did 1990.

courses are longer and greens faster.

they do make the course more difficult but technology has driven the average distance hit is more than it used to be.

Stenson was lagging Bubba with 50 meters in Masters.

 

Mechanically however todays tour pros are worse than in the older days.

to score you want 3m proximity but the best does 10m and that means a 20% birdie conversion (3 in a round)

So to score you want to be close to pin (duh) but they cant do better than they do.

Tracking Masters it was evident how bad their dispersion and distance control was.

Jordan had 2 good rounds but off days cost him the title so it shows mentally how they are not able to bring their A-game every round.

 

some observations I done and fixed along the way

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Reading through the thread on PR's ancient irons at the Masters got me thinking. Why haven't scores come down with all the new tech? Seems like going from persimmon to steel to titanium to 460cc titanium with movable weights and $1000 graphite shafts along with Trackman and ProV1s and all the other tech through out the bag would make scores come down. Plus these guys now are bigger and stronger, in better shape and have had coaches and psychiatrists and all the rest since they were kids. So why haven't scores come down much? Harder courses? Faster greens? Pins more tucked?

 

Just seems strange that 50 years ago with persimmon and butter knives and whatever they used for balls guys could shoot 65 and today with all the tech that same 65 on the same course is a good score.

 

Or am I totally wrong and scores have come down?

 

More tour players hit 290+ yards than they did 1990.

courses are longer and greens faster.

they do make the course more difficult but technology has driven the average distance hit is more than it used to be.

Stenson was lagging Bubba with 50 meters in Masters.

 

Mechanically however todays tour pros are worse than in the older days.

to score you want 3m proximity but the best does 10m and that means a 20% birdie conversion (3 in a round)

So to score you want to be close to pin (duh) but they cant do better than they do.

Tracking Masters it was evident how bad their dispersion and distance control was.

Jordan had 2 good rounds but off days cost him the title so it shows mentally how they are not able to bring their A-game every round.

 

some observations I done and fixed along the way

 

I'll go ahead and agree with you, but I'm not sure what you just wrote. I mentally read it with an accent, so it seemed very convincing.

[buckeyefl]

Consider the source

[Dave230]

This is a bit of a long-winded, semi-relevant rant but anyway...

 

In my opinion, people always overestimate the evolution of sport, assuming that progress always goes in a linear upward direction, and never stagnates or declines. There are less people playing golf worldwide now than there were, and as in the case of all sports, there are so many distractions for young people in terms of video games and the internet that the older generations did not have to deal with. Coaching may be slightly better (although a lot of coaching is a rehash of coaching of previous generations), but I don't know if engagement is the same. There is no definite way to prove this.

 

I did not live through the Jack Nicklaus era, but I know for sure that if you transport Tiger Woods from 2000, clubs and all from his era, to a golf course in 20 years time, he competes to win. Make it 40 years, and I still take that bet. Maybe the bar raises ever so slightly. In the case of golf, the creation of the WGC events and European players playing multiple PGA Tour events, has made competition greater than ever.

 

But 20 years on, it is still possible for the best players to dominate if they're good enough. Justin Thomas, DJ, Spieth, Rory and Day have all won multiple tournaments. So there's no doubt that peak Tiger could still dominate.

 

Of course, there was a big improvement in all sports from the earliest days until they were well established. But once it hits a certain level, I think a lot of 'innovation' goes around in circles, and involves a rehash of old ideas. You see this all the time in football (soccer), there is a new formation that 'dominates' the league, and everybody uses it, even though it was used 40 years ago. Then every team finds a way to beat it, and uses another formation, one that was used 30 years ago etc.

 

Recency bias wins the day, and people are generally quite ignorant of greats of the past. How Pelé couldn't compete in the modern era, despite being a pioneer in nutrition and sports science. Wilt Chamberlain was as strong as anybody in the NBA today, probably one of the strongest athletes that ever lived, and he ran marathons for fun and ended up in the volleyball Hall of Fame as well

 

Aside from athleticism, I think some people forget that most sports are skill-based that require thousands and thousands of hours of practice. The number of hours in a day has not changed from generation to generation. The most committed people will always reach the top.

 

Answering the original question, players haven't really gotten any better than 30 years ago. It's just that the best players meet 15 times a year instead of 5 times a year. Courses were lengthened to deal with tech and greens made firmer. So a 330-yard drive and a 150-yard pitching wedge now reacts like a 280-yard drive and a 150-yard 8 iron used to. It's not significantly easier to get the ball really close to the hole.

[Roadking2003]

What are the average scores of today vs yesteryear?

 

There seems to be are allot of those 59, 60-63 numbers now a days despite the longer courses and faster greens.

 

Looking at just the scoring average leader, that number did go down from 1980 to 1994 but has been roughly flat since then.

[Slanman]

There were no black people in that first basketball gif. That’s the only difference there

[Roadking2003]

And when you compare AVERAGE driving distance with AVERAGE score you will see there is no correlation.

 

You still have to have to hit the ball 450 - 500 yards in two shots and then hole your second putt to make a par. Those 500 yards don't care what number is on the bottom of the club.

[nochct1]

It's not just distance. The greens are faster, the rough is thicker and the pins are tucked.

 

Most amateurs don't have a clue what 13 on the stimpmeter is. And they have never seen a really tucked pin. And I'm not talking about the "13" you get at your annual member guest.

 

Golfers have gotten longer. Equipment is better. But there have been a lot of changes to the courses over the years to protect par. That's why scoring hasn't changed too much.

[15th Club]

Same reason free throw % hasn’t increased in the nba for like 50 years

 

Indeed. Maybe they should raise the hoop and move back the FT line to preserve the legacies of Hornacek and Mark Price. You know, reward the real shotmakers.

 

Oh you mean that basketball-playing athletes maybe aren't getting all that much better? It's just golfing "athletes"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, I think it's pretty much across the board.

 

My point:

=================W-H-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-S-H==========>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your head.

[dlygrisse]

Because the golf courses are almost 1000 yards longer.

 

Yep. ANGC played 6700 ish yards for many years. Till Tiger dismantled it.

 

450 yards used to be considered a long par 4.

[15th Club]

Because the golf courses are almost 1000 yards longer.

 

Yep. ANGC played 6700 ish yards for many years. Till Tiger dismantled it.

 

450 yards used to be considered a long par 4.

 

I think that this is misleading. Augusta National was over 6925 yards when Tiger won in 1997.

 

Mark O'Meara won in 1998, again at 6925 yards,

 

Augusta lengthened the course modestly in 1999; it played at 6985 yards and Jose Maria Olazabal won his second Masters title. (Like Ben Crenshaw, Olazabal is one of the handful of players to prove that being the best driver of the golf ball in the field is not at all necessary to win at Augusta.) There were other changes in 1999 besides length; it was the year that "the second cut" was introduced, and the tee at the 11th hole was repositioned.

 

Vijay Singh won in 2000, as more changes were made, but the course remained at 6985 yards officially.

 

In the summer of 2000, urethane balls began to be tested by tour players. By the fall of 2000 and through 2001, solid core urethane balls had taken over tour golf. (At right around 6900 yards, there had been no need to lengthen the Masters tees at ANGC for twenty years, going back to 1980.) The people who knew equipment and who knew tour golf and golf course architecture saw the impact right away. In April of 1999, Jack Nicklaus had called it out: https://www.nytimes....t-masters.html

 

Tiger Woods did not win his second Masters tournament until 2001. And the course was still at 6985 yards officially. Tiger did it with a new Nike urethane ball.

 

Woods repeated as Masters' champion in 2002, at which time the Pro V1 effect was confronting every PGA Tour course. And so it was with Augusta, which played for the first time at more than 7200 yards. Indeed, there were so many changes with trees, bunkers and tees in the 2000's, I won't recount them all here. Suffice it to say, they coincided with the rise and dominance of the Pro V1 and similar golf balls.

 

On the merits, and on careful examination, I have never understood the myth of "Tiger-proofing" Augusta National. What ANGC did was what every Tour golf course had to do: they had to urethane-proof the golf courses.

[15th Club]

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Same reason free throw % hasn’t increased in the nba for like 50 years

 

Indeed. Maybe they should raise the hoop and move back the FT line to preserve the legacies of Hornacek and Mark Price. You know, reward the real shotmakers.

 

Oh you mean that basketball-playing athletes maybe aren't getting all that much better? It's just golfing "athletes"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nah, I think it's pretty much across the board.

 

My point:

=================W-H-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-S-H==========>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your head.

 

Sure thing, sweetie. Bahaha!

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

 

Totally. We need a 20% reduction as Jack Nicklaus says. The driving distance leaders would then be around 248 yards; much shorter than the golden era, so Nicklaus's completely transparent self interest will finally be appeased. Keep those courses long, though. Bombers hitting it 248 on 7700 yard courses will make for some great golf. Growing the game! It's either that, or trifurcation that the handicap system could be uh, uh, made to deal with. Anywho, there are very simple solutions to this problem that roughly 40-50 people on Earth are worried about.

[15th Club]

I'll help you out, Ashley Schaeffer, with an even more simplified explanation.

 

The golf ball debate has featured lots of people saying effectively; But athletes get better and better! Why would anybody not recognize that? It's natural; performance improves!

 

And of course no one on the Rollback side of the debate doubts that. So when someone earlier posed the example of basketball free throws not improving over time, my sarcastic (you've been such a personal inspiration to me, in the Sarcasm Department) response was to ask if athletes were not improving. And to suggest that what basketball players needed, was a machine to make free throws for them. Make it out of graphite, urethane and titanium alloys. With new, improved models every other year.

 

Of course all of that "athlete improvement" stuff goes out the window when we are talking about a sport where the equipment is so important and in such a state of technical R&D.

 

I see people comparing golfers, to basketball players and baseball players et cetera. But I think the better comparison, of athletes combining with technology, would be auto racing. And while elite race car drivers are perfectly respectable as athletes, the major questions are technological. And if a different sort of restrictor plate, or engine displacement, or tires, were required to preserve the best quality of racing at Daytona or Monaco or Indianapolis, the racing authorities would do that. They wouldn't build a new track. They would "roll back" technology to the extent needed, and allow other technologies to flourish. The venue, and the desire for the best competition, would take precedence over ever-increasing distance speed.

[Roadking2003]

I think that this is misleading. Augusta National was over 6925 yards when Tiger won in 1997.

 

Mark O'Meara won in 1998, again at 6925 yards,

 

Augusta lengthened the course modestly in 1999; it played at 6985 yards and Jose Maria Olazabal won his second Masters title. (Like Ben Crenshaw, Olazabal is one of the handful of players to prove that being the best driver of the golf ball in the field is not at all necessary to win at Augusta.) There were other changes in 1999 besides length; it was the year that "the second cut" was introduced, and the tee at the 11th hole was repositioned.

 

Vijay Singh won in 2000, as more changes were made, but the course remained at 6985 yards officially.

 

In the summer of 2000, urethane balls began to be tested by tour players. By the fall of 2000 and through 2001, solid core urethane balls had taken over tour golf. (At right around 6900 yards, there had been no need to lengthen the Masters tees at ANGC for twenty years, going back to 1980.) The people who knew equipment and who knew tour golf and golf course architecture saw the impact right away. In April of 1999, Jack Nicklaus had called it out: https://www.nytimes....t-masters.html

 

Tiger Woods did not win his second Masters tournament until 2001. And the course was still at 6985 yards officially. Tiger did it with a new Nike urethane ball.

 

Woods repeated as Masters' champion in 2001, at which time the Pro V1 effect was confronting every PGA Tour course. And so it was with Augusta, which played for the first time at more than 7200 yards. Indeed, there were so many changes with trees, bunkers and tees in the 2000's, I won't recount them all here. Suffice it to say, they coincided with the rise and dominance of the Pro V1 and similar golf balls.

 

On the merits, and on careful examination, I have never understood the myth of "Tiger-proofing" Augusta National. What ANGC did was what every Tour golf course had to do: they had to urethane-proof the golf courses.

 

You are 100% correct, but that phrase doesn't make a good headline.

 

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

 

You are 100% wrong. They already did something about it.

[15th Club]

 

 

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

 

You are 100% wrong. They already did something about it.

 

I must've missed that. What did they do about golf balls in the years since the introduction of the Pro V1?

[Sean2]

You could probably say something similar about the scores of amateur golfers as well.

[Pepperturbo]

I believe golf course difficulty, conditioning & length play roles, as well as mental and physical limits of man.

[Roadking2003]

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

 

You are 100% wrong. They already did something about it.

 

I must've missed that. What did they do about golf balls in the years since the introduction of the Pro V1?

 

Golf ball distance has been limited by the USGA since 2004. And there has been almost no distance gain since then.

 

USGA "7.2.4 If the overall distance determined in 7.2.1 is greater than 320.0 yards the ball does not conform to the Rules of Golf."

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

 

You are 100% wrong. They already did something about it.

 

I must've missed that. What did they do about golf balls in the years since the introduction of the Pro V1?

 

Golf ball distance has been limited by the USGA since 2004. And there has been almost no distance gain since then.

 

USGA "7.2.4 If the overall distance determined in 7.2.1 is greater than 320.0 yards the ball does not conform to the Rules of Golf."

 

Something must be done!

[15th Club]

It's the ball, it's the ball, it's the ball, and something needs to be done about it. I expect that something will be done about it, and soon. :yes:

 

You are 100% wrong. They already did something about it.

 

I must've missed that. What did they do about golf balls in the years since the introduction of the Pro V1?

 

Golf ball distance has been limited by the USGA since 2004. And there has been almost no distance gain since then.

 

USGA "7.2.4 If the overall distance determined in 7.2.1 is greater than 320.0 yards the ball does not conform to the Rules of Golf."

 

Two problems:

1. The presumption that "distance" is flat since 2002, or 2004, or whatever year anyone wishes to choose, is not credible with me. We can agree to disagree if necessary. We probably will. And even if we were to agree that distance is flat, let's at least agree that there was a very big leap in distance related to the introduction of urethane balls. Not athleticism. Not agronomy. Nothing, other than the type of balls. I will agree that distance has flattened to a great extent if first everyone else will agree that the Pro V Era produced a big golfball-produced distance increase.
   
2. The 2004 ODS protocol did nothing about the aforementioned leap in distance. There was an ODS before 2004; it didn't prevent the Pro V explosion. And the 2004 ODS was like 40 yards farther than the old ODS, right? I don't think it was supposed to roll back anything. It didn't roll back anything. And we shall see if it prevents any distance increases. So far, it looks like there are continuing increases, at a lower rate. If your point is that we won't see any gigantic leaps as we did with the start of the Pro V Era, I'd have to agree. If your point is that because of the ODS, and capped driver volume and MoI, we won't see any more distance gains, I shall disagree. And since 2002, the USGA and the R&A are on record saying that any further increases in distance would be undesirable.
   

 

Edit., to add; As I have said many times, even if the ball was absolutely capped and produced absolutely zero distance increases in golf, it is "still the ball" that is at issue. The reason being, we will never "roll back" athleticism, or fitness, or launch-monitoring. I might be interested in any notions of rolling back golf clubs, but I don't see that happening. And we absolutely should not trick up golf courses to create any sort of effective roll back. The answer, if distances are increasing, and even if the ball is not adding to the overall distance equation, is still to roll back the ball standards, because that is the easiest thing to do. THAT is the further answer to why I say, "It's the ball!"

[DatSliceDoe]

Someone ought to make a 10,000 yd course and see how the pros do on it.

[MtlJeff]

PGA pro golfers represent 0.000005% of the golfers in the US, and the courses they play in a given year represent 0.002% of the courses in the US (numbers approximate)

 

So yeah, let's totally change the rules because of these factors

[Sean2]

PGA pro golfers represent 0.000005% of the golfers in the US, and the courses they play in a given year represent 0.002% of the courses in the US (numbers approximate)

 

So yeah, let's totally change the rules because of these factors

 

They did it with the groove rule. Very effective. :-)

[15th Club]

PGA pro golfers represent 0.000005% of the golfers in the US, and the courses they play in a given year represent 0.002% of the courses in the US (numbers approximate)

 

So yeah, let's totally change the rules because of these factors

 

It isn't just the PGA Tour.

 

The University of Michigan's Alister Mackenzie/Perry Maxwell golf course measures just over 6700 yards from the championship tees. There is no more real estate to move its (wonderfully walkable) tees. NCAA golfers are very nearly as long as PGA Tour players. And it is a requisite of UMGC -- as well as a large number of other university/USGA qualifier/competition courses -- that it be able to host competitions of elite-level players.

[MtlJeff]

PGA pro golfers represent 0.000005% of the golfers in the US, and the courses they play in a given year represent 0.002% of the courses in the US (numbers approximate)

 

So yeah, let's totally change the rules because of these factors

 

It isn't just the PGA Tour.

 

The University of Michigan's Alister Mackenzie/Perry Maxwell golf course measures just over 6700 yards from the championship tees. There is no more real estate to move its (wonderfully walkable) tees. NCAA golfers are very nearly as long as PGA Tour players. And it is a requisite of UMGC -- as well as a large number of other university/USGA qualifier/competition courses -- that it be able to host competitions of elite-level players.

 

We can throw the NCAA in there too and maybe get it to .0025

[Ashley Schaeffer]

PGA pro golfers represent 0.000005% of the golfers in the US, and the courses they play in a given year represent 0.002% of the courses in the US (numbers approximate)

 

So yeah, let's totally change the rules because of these factors

 

It isn't just the PGA Tour.

 

The University of Michigan's Alister Mackenzie/Perry Maxwell golf course measures just over 6700 yards from the championship tees. There is no more real estate to move its (wonderfully walkable) tees. NCAA golfers are very nearly as long as PGA Tour players. And it is a requisite of UMGC -- as well as a large number of other university/USGA qualifier/competition courses -- that it be able to host competitions of elite-level players.

 

Did they close the course, or is it still available to host a tournament?

What would happen if they had the US Open there? Would the score be too low? Would it make a long dead surgeon mad?

[Roadking2003]

And it is a requisite of UMGC -- as well as a large number of other university/USGA qualifier/competition courses -- that it be able to host competitions of elite-level players.

 

Why is it a requisite?