Is Increasing Driving Distance Ruining the Pro Tours? (***CONTENTS UNDER MOD REVIEW***)

[bigred90gt]

The title of this thread should be changed to "15th Club VS The World".

 

But seriously, perhaps we can reel this thread back in and add some new information or insight into the original OP question. Does driving distance ruin pro tours? I say no because low score wins and aesthetics is too subjective to be a reasonable way to conclude it is or isn't. Tour pro distance seems to amaze the average golfer and I think has that home run type feel which everyone likes to see in baseball. So if pro tours primarily care about number of viewers, and if distance currently attracts them (which its seems is true because they keep setting up courses to be more and more distance friendly), then logically it is not ruining pro tours.

 

Edit: Fixed error that actually bugged me, where is Bobcat my auto corrector?

Driving distance does not ruin pro tours. But, driving distance has made some golf courses obsolete because the hazards are no longer in play and players just drive the ball over them. The Road Hole at St Andrews wasn't designed to be Driver/8 iron and the 18th hole wasn't meant to be drivable. They can't lengthen the holes and the R&A doesn't want to take it out of the rota, but they also don't want 20 under to win their Open Championship. They want the course to be played the way it was designed and the logical method to do that is to reduce the ball.

 

I think the answer to this whole debate is going to be bifurcation because the average golfer doesn't want a reduced ball. I think it ends up being introduced at St Andrews and then they'll decide the future based off of that experience. I think the USGA will follow suit and play one of their Championships with a reduced ball on a 6800 yard layout. You can see the wheels in motion and you can see that the people who are really in charge(Mike Davis, et al) want to see it happen. Where it goes from there is anybody's guess. Mike Davis is the guy that thought that Chamber's Bay was a good idea and then the USGA ruined the golf course in preparation. A similar disaster would doom the rolled back ball. But, maybe it's successful and it ends up not being a big deal. Not a big deal to me. I'm going to keep playing the current ball and I'll still watch what they do.

True but.... as I posted in a similar thread... We used to celebrate Arnie driving the green at Cherry Hills in the US Open. And Jack at the very 18th at St Andrews you just mentioned.

But today??? It's a sacrilege! That's not how the architect intended that hole to be played. A good architect most assuredly does not make a hole playable in one and only one fashion.

I don't think they'd mind if DJ or Rory drove the green. What they mind is DJ and Rory hitting 3 woods and 30 other guys driving the green. And, it's not just those two holes. The course doesn't play the way it was designed for these longer hitters. The R&A is enamored with keeping it in the rota. Do not underestimate the R&A in this entire debate. They have several courses that are on the verge of becoming extinct to Major golf. Their opinions weigh heavily in this debate.

The course doesn’t play the way it was designed for ANYBODY. Golf is not the same game it was when it was invented, and it never will be again.

[gvogel]

Widow-maker

 

It is what I take from it because I care not of how a course is played. Your statement hinted at a focus on what club DJ and Rory hit vs the rest of the crowd. The entire crowd have surpassed the old timers in distance for many reasons as stated in this thread. A common theme seems to be what club is being used and when. Take away the name of the club and there is less and less of that silliness. I was merely focusing on this part of your post because like I said, it bothers me none that players can hit over bunkers, or green par 4s on the precious old course.

 

You have to also remember, a guy that can swing a 44 inch driver 120,vs a guy that swings a 46 inch driver 120,don't have the same power but can hit it the same distance. It is generally a sacrifice of accuracy and consistency to accomplish that.

 

I am rambling outside of the points I meant to make but I am too lazy to try and edit this on my phone. What a pain in the butt replying to these on phones is.

The course no longer has any teeth for the modern Tour pro. They can't lengthen it because they don't have the land. They really don't want to change it because it is literally the history of golf. The one thing they can do to keep playing there is to roll back the ball. It's a cheap solution for them and they take their golf history very seriously. They've also got some other pretty historical courses in their rota that are creeping toward being obsolete for Tour pro length. It's a major concern for them. They realize that it's the same course for everybody, it's that it's not the test of golf that they're looking for, and they don't want to change the courses.

 

To me, I don't care what they do. I'm 67 years old and I don't play competitively anymore. I play recreationally. With the current ball I play tees set at @6200 yds or so. If they made me play a reduced ball, I'd play tees at 5800 yds. It doesn't matter much to me at this point. If given the choice, I'll continue to play the current ball at the current distance. At this point in my life, I'm going to get the same enjoyment either way.

 

They ditched Prestwick and Muselburough, why can't they ditch the old course?

 

The USGA ditched plenty of courses. Why do we HAVE to go back to these places?

 

Seems pretty assanine to tell me, someone who will NEVER get to play even half of these "revered" courses, that since the top .1% can't play them because they hit it too far, that I'll be penalized too.

 

They ditched Prestwick not because of the length, but because there was not enough room for spectators.

[gvogel]

Honest question for 15th Club:

 

Bud, what if the USGA came out tomorrow and said, "You know what? We've decided that the only distance problem is there isn't enough distance. We hereby raise distance standards to X for clubs and Y for balls. We love what Titleist is doing, cheers!"?

 

Would you agree with the decision? Criticize the USGA? Start your own equipment company?

 

That may be an "honest" question, but it is not a serious question. The USGA and the R&A have spoken already, and they have together stated the principle that any further gains in distance due to any combination of equipment, athleticism or otherwise is undesirable.

 

I happen to know that, as an attorney, you are familiar with hypothetical questions. I also understand that you may struggle with them. I can make it easier for you:

 

What if the USGA came out tomorrow and said, "We've decided that we will not take any action at this time. We hereby keep the same distance standards of X for clubs and Y for balls."?

 

Would you criticize the decision?

 

Yes.

 

I would be disappointed as well.

[gvogel]

What is the number on the sole of the club that hits a ball 367 yards?

Driver wedge

 

Driver 6-iron for me; but I digress. ;)

[gvogel]

 

I don't think they'd mind if DJ or Rory drove the green. What they mind is DJ and Rory hitting 3 woods and 30 other guys driving the green. And, it's not just those two holes. The course doesn't play the way it was designed for these longer hitters. The R&A is enamored with keeping it in the rota. Do not underestimate the R&A in this entire debate. They have several courses that are on the verge of becoming extinct to Major golf. Their opinions weigh heavily in this debate.

The course doesn't play the way it was designed for ANYBODY. Golf is not the same game it was when it was invented, and it never will be again.

 

Just a point of clarification. The Old Course was not designed by anyone. It evolved. It started as a narrow strip of grass, with players playing out and in on the same holes. It evolved when Tom Morris Sr cut back enough brush and gorse on the ocean side of that strip to allow play in the opposite direction without interference. It evolved when Morris extended the size of the greens so that different groups could putt at the same time, playing in different directions. It evolved when Morris took a couple of very short holes that started, and combined them into longer holes - at one point it was a 22 hole course. It evolved when Morris dug a ditch in front of what is now the 18th green, in order to build up the 18th green.

 

Heck, they used to play it both counter-clockwise and clockwise - one week one direction, the next week the other direction.

 

As it evolved, the best players determined that it was very good challenge for a championship. Bobby Jones fell in love with the course, as did Jack Nicklaus. I think that Tiger Woods shares a fondness for it.

 

Is it worth protecting as a challenging course for a national championship? Many people think so.

[QuigleyDU]

I know it is early but it is interesting watching the Memorial this morning. The course has gotten an inch of rain. which is not a ton and is playing soft. Distances are way down off the tee already and there is very little roll. Kinda proving the point that if you limit run you will accomplish the same reduction in distance off the tee.

[clevited]

I don't think they'd mind if DJ or Rory drove the green. What they mind is DJ and Rory hitting 3 woods and 30 other guys driving the green. And, it's not just those two holes. The course doesn't play the way it was designed for these longer hitters. The R&A is enamored with keeping it in the rota. Do not underestimate the R&A in this entire debate. They have several courses that are on the verge of becoming extinct to Major golf. Their opinions weigh heavily in this debate.

The course doesn't play the way it was designed for ANYBODY. Golf is not the same game it was when it was invented, and it never will be again.

 

Just a point of clarification. The Old Course was not designed by anyone. It evolved. It started as a narrow strip of grass, with players playing out and in on the same holes. It evolved when Tom Morris Sr cut back enough brush and gorse on the ocean side of that strip to allow play in the opposite direction without interference. It evolved when Morris extended the size of the greens so that different groups could putt at the same time, playing in different directions. It evolved when Morris took a couple of very short holes that started, and combined them into longer holes - at one point it was a 22 hole course. It evolved when Morris dug a ditch in front of what is now the 18th green, in order to build up the 18th green.

 

Heck, they used to play it both counter-clockwise and clockwise - one week one direction, the next week the other direction.

 

As it evolved, the best players determined that it was very good challenge for a championship. Bobby Jones fell in love with the course, as did Jack Nicklaus. I think that Tiger Woods shares a fondness for it.

 

Is it worth protecting as a challenging course for a national championship? Many people think so.

 

I just don't understand how you and others think that the old course isn't challenging anymore? Look at some of the past scores of the winners. Yes, scores have trended lower in recent years but that doesn't mean the course isn't a challenge. The players that won are REALLY good players. The weather at any time can make that course extremely different and difficult. The overall quality of players on tour is better than it was once upon a time and there is no denying that. Equipment helps, the ball helps, but overwhelmingly, the players are better. They will tell you it is challenging, but the players to beat are REALLY good, that really brings up the quality of play needed to win. These players are aggressive, confident, and physcially, mentally, and emotionally tough these days.

 

You and others make it seem like the old course is no more than a mini golf course with history (which even those can be hard ha).

 

It isn't being played as intended by more players than they would like to see (they being the R&A, and people like you). There is a problem with people having a problem with players not playing a course as intended. You can't stop it, you won't stop it, and it would be silly to try and stop it.

[North Butte]

It isn't being played as intended by more players than they would like to see (they being the R&A, and people like you). There is a problem with people having a problem with players not playing a course as intended. You can't stop it, you won't stop it, and it would be silly to try and stop it.

 

Of course you can say the same thing about hoping USGA/R&A won't do something stupid to try and force Tour players to play the way they want. We can't stop them, we won't stop them, it's silly to even talk about stopping them.

 

Whether it's groove rules or whatever nonsense they're gearing up to impose on the golf balls, USGA is gonna USGA. They will come up with some supposedly brilliant tweak that they force down everyone's throats under the pretext of making the best golfers of 2020 go about the same exactly the way the best golfers of 1980 would have done.

 

USGA can't make Dustin Johnson play like Jack Nicklaus and we can't make USGA act like they have a lick of sense.

[15th Club]

I just don't understand how you and others think that the old course isn't challenging anymore? Look at some of the past scores of the winners. Yes, scores have trended lower in recent years but that doesn't mean the course isn't a challenge. The players that won are REALLY good players. The weather at any time can make that course extremely different and difficult. The overall quality of players on tour is better than it was once upon a time and there is no denying that. Equipment helps, the

ball

helps, but overwhelmingly, the players are better. They will tell you it is challenging, but the players to beat are REALLY good, that really brings up the quality of play needed to win. These players are aggressive, confident, and physcially, mentally, and emotionally tough these days.

 

You and others make it seem like the old course is no more than a mini golf course with history (which even those can be hard ha).

 

It isn't being played as intended by more players than they would like to see (they being the R&A, and people like you). There is a problem with people having a problem with players not playing a course as intended. You can't stop it, you won't stop it, and it would be silly to try and stop it.

 

But they keep doing undesirable things to The Old Course! They do what they can, to make the greens as punitively-fast as possible, to the point of near-unplaybility in a strong wind. They have moved tournament tees to places like the #2 position in what would normally be out of bounds and off the property. They re-figured the fairway of the Road Hole. Honestly, they'd have done a lot more anti-historical stuff, if only they had the room to do it. And of course I think that the R&A doesn't like doing it, but they feel that they must, in order to counteract the equipment.

 

And I again, I really don't care, if anybody wants to claim that "athleticism" is the reason for all of the distance gains. Assuredly, the USGA and the R&A don't care. Whatever the reason, something needs to be done about distance and the ball is the overwhelmingly easy thing to fix.

[QuigleyDU]

I just don't understand how you and others think that the old course isn't challenging anymore? Look at some of the past scores of the winners. Yes, scores have trended lower in recent years but that doesn't mean the course isn't a challenge. The players that won are REALLY good players. The weather at any time can make that course extremely different and difficult. The overall quality of players on tour is better than it was once upon a time and there is no denying that. Equipment helps, the

ball

helps, but overwhelmingly, the players are better. They will tell you it is challenging, but the players to beat are REALLY good, that really brings up the quality of play needed to win. These players are aggressive, confident, and physcially, mentally, and emotionally tough these days.

 

 

You and others make it seem like the old course is no more than a mini golf course with history (which even those can be hard ha).

 

 

It isn't being played as intended by more players than they would like to see (they being the R&A, and people like you). There is a problem with people having a problem with players not playing a course as intended. You can't stop it, you won't stop it, and it would be silly to try and stop it.

 

But they keep doing undesirable things to The Old Course! They do what they can, to make the greens as punitively-fast as possible, to the point of near-unplaybility in a strong wind. They have moved tournament tees to places like the #2 position in what would normally be out of bounds and off the property. They re-figured the fairway of the Road Hole. Honestly, they'd have done a lot more anti-historical stuff, if only they had the room to do it. And of course I think that the R&A doesn't like doing it, but they feel that they must, in order to counteract the equipment.

 

And I again, I really don't care, if anybody wants to claim that "athleticism" is the reason for all of the distance gains. Assuredly, the USGA and the R&A don't care. Whatever the reason, something needs to be done about distance and the ball is the overwhelmingly easy thing to fix.

 

 

when all they have to do is play it as originally intended and not manicure it like a celebrities tow nails. Slow it up, let it be a touch scruffy (oh the horror, i know). reminds me of this. of course, the set up should be fair a reward good shots. But it can also not be set up so that you take away from how 99% of golfers have to play. which is with a bit of uncertainty.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101221.html?noredirect=on

[clevited]

I just don't understand how you and others think that the old course isn't challenging anymore? Look at some of the past scores of the winners. Yes, scores have trended lower in recent years but that doesn't mean the course isn't a challenge. The players that won are REALLY good players. The weather at any time can make that course extremely different and difficult. The overall quality of players on tour is better than it was once upon a time and there is no denying that. Equipment helps, the

ball

helps, but overwhelmingly, the players are better. They will tell you it is challenging, but the players to beat are REALLY good, that really brings up the quality of play needed to win. These players are aggressive, confident, and physcially, mentally, and emotionally tough these days.

 

 

You and others make it seem like the old course is no more than a mini golf course with history (which even those can be hard ha).

 

 

It isn't being played as intended by more players than they would like to see (they being the R&A, and people like you). There is a problem with people having a problem with players not playing a course as intended. You can't stop it, you won't stop it, and it would be silly to try and stop it.

 

But they keep doing undesirable things to The Old Course! They do what they can, to make the greens as punitively-fast as possible, to the point of near-unplaybility in a strong wind. They have moved tournament tees to places like the #2 position in what would normally be out of bounds and off the property. They re-figured the fairway of the Road Hole. Honestly, they'd have done a lot more anti-historical stuff, if only they had the room to do it. And of course I think that the R&A doesn't like doing it, but they feel that they must, in order to counteract the equipment.

 

And I again, I really don't care, if anybody wants to claim that "athleticism" is the reason for all of the distance gains. Assuredly, the USGA and the R&A don't care. Whatever the reason, something needs to be done about distance and the ball is the overwhelmingly easy thing to fix.

 

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

[15th Club]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

[clevited]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

 

Courses have been changed in response to one or two players in the past, or so the common theme on here states. I am basing what I said off that. Arnie greening whatever hole on whatever course, Tiger not hitting into a single bunker at The Old Course.

 

Edit:I guess the term is called Tiger Proofing. I honestly don't pay much attention to that, I don't care what changes courses make dumb or not unless they give leverage for the ball roll back.

[bigred90gt]

I happen to know that, as an attorney, you are familiar with hypothetical questions. I also understand that you may struggle with them. I can make it easier for you:

 

What if the USGA came out tomorrow and said, "We've decided that we will not take any action at this time. We hereby keep the same distance standards of X for clubs and Y for balls."?

 

Would you criticize the decision?

 

Yes.

 

Thanks for the straightforward response.

It is much like I prefer the current equipment standards, and criticize the proposals to change them.

Calling people out for criticizing the USGA isn't helpful when you admit that you would also be critical of the USGA if it happened to be on the other side of the issue. I genuinely hope that makes sense to you.

 

But you are criticizing the USGA for... what, exactly?

 

There isn't any ball rollback proposal. I've said this many times. There is no active spec proposal; no prototypes; nothing on which to base any complaints about what it might do to certain recreational players, or Tour players, or television ratings or anything else. The USGA has done nothing so far other than to say very clearly that they perceive a potential problem, and they are studying it, and oh by the way if you want to tell the USGA what you are thinking they've given you a link to a message page where you can do that.

 

For that, the USGA is getting criticized?

 

The USGA and the R&A set forth a Joint Statement of Principles in 2002. Stating that any further increases in distance would be undesirable.

 

In 2002, the longest driver on Tour was the athlete John Daly at 306, the number 50 driver was Michael Allen at 285, and Tiger Woods was sixth, at 293.

 

In 2018, the longest driver on Tour is Trey Mullinax at 320, the number 50 driver is Martin Laird at 300, and the post-op Tiger Woods is T-24 at 305.

 

The USGA has done nothing, other than to say, uh, we're looking at those numbers.

 

Correction, they said any further “significant increases in distance”. As I already pointed out from the 2017 distance report, there has been an increase in average distance on the PGA tour of approximately 6 yards from (if memory serves me) 287 to 293, which is 2%. 2% is far from significant when you are talking about 287 as a baseline, so by their own statement, there is nothing undesirable and nothing to be concerned about.

[15th Club]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

 

Courses have been changed in response to one or two players in the past, or so the common theme on here states. I am basing what I said off that. Arnie greening whatever hole on whatever course, Tiger not hitting into a single bunker at The Old Course.

 

No, I don't think that there is any evidence for that. I really thought you were going to cite "Tigerproofing" at Augusta, which is a myth. ANGC didn't make many changes at all, immediately following Tiger Woods' 1997 win. The course changed much more dramatically in the early 2000's in response to the introduction of the Pro V1.

 

Arnold Palmer's driving the First green in the 1960 US Open was from 346 yards. With some rather good rollout to make it onto the green. (The hole is perfect for a Palmer baby-draw.) The hole is now 389 yards, but basically every hole that could be lengthened at Cherry Hills has been lengthened. Because of modern distances in general, and not Palmer.

[bigred90gt]

I just don't understand how you and others think that the old course isn't challenging anymore? Look at some of the past scores of the winners. Yes, scores have trended lower in recent years but that doesn't mean the course isn't a challenge. The players that won are REALLY good players. The weather at any time can make that course extremely different and difficult. The overall quality of players on tour is better than it was once upon a time and there is no denying that. Equipment helps, the

ball

helps, but overwhelmingly, the players are better. They will tell you it is challenging, but the players to beat are REALLY good, that really brings up the quality of play needed to win. These players are aggressive, confident, and physcially, mentally, and emotionally tough these days.

 

You and others make it seem like the old course is no more than a mini golf course with history (which even those can be hard ha).

 

It isn't being played as intended by more players than they would like to see (they being the R&A, and people like you). There is a problem with people having a problem with players not playing a course as intended. You can't stop it, you won't stop it, and it would be silly to try and stop it.

 

But they keep doing undesirable things to The Old Course! They do what they can, to make the greens as punitively-fast as possible, to the point of near-unplaybility in a strong wind. They have moved tournament tees to places like the #2 position in what would normally be out of bounds and off the property. They re-figured the fairway of the Road Hole. Honestly, they'd have done a lot more anti-historical stuff, if only they had the room to do it. And of course I think that the R&A doesn't like doing it, but they feel that they must, in order to counteract the equipment.

 

And I again, I really don't care, if anybody wants to claim that "athleticism" is the reason for all of the distance gains. Assuredly, the USGA and the R&A don't care. Whatever the reason, something needs to be done about distance and the ball is the overwhelmingly easy thing to fix.

 

Explain to everyone how, in your mind, the ball is an easier and cheaper fix than raising the height of the mower, please. Offer up a logical response and someone might take you seriously. There is literally zero added expense, zero rules/equipment spec changes, zero additional time, zero r&d expense, zero chance of dq for a player having thrown the wron ball in his bag, zero negative effects to any single person hitting a golf ball on the planet. How, in your mind, is completely re-engineering the golf ball to either provide a predetermined reduction across the board, or the magical ball that provides reduction beyond a predetermined clubhead speed, the “easier fix”?

[clevited]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

 

Courses have been changed in response to one or two players in the past, or so the common theme on here states. I am basing what I said off that. Arnie greening whatever hole on whatever course, Tiger not hitting into a single bunker at The Old Course.

 

No, I don't think that there is any evidence for that. I really thought you were going to cite "Tigerproofing" at Augusta, which is a myth. ANGC didn't make many changes at all, immediately following Tiger Woods' 1997 win. The course changed much more dramatically in the early 2000's in response to the introduction of the Pro V1.

 

Arnold Palmer's driving the First green in the 1960 US Open was from 346 yards. With some rather good rollout to make it onto the green. (The hole is perfect for a Palmer baby-draw.) The hole is now 389 yards, but basically every hole that could be lengthened at Cherry Hills has been lengthened. Because of modern distances in general, and not Palmer.

 

 

I edited my previous post. Tiger proofing is what I guess the general public calls it, and I see proof of it everywhere. It was the style of play they were guarding against and not just a ball and equipment. I think it is opinion that no course has been Tiger Proofed because of what Tiger could do (as well as other Tiger like players now).

 

This makes me want to reiterate something that has been hinted at and talked about a little on here. The fact that tiger-proofing, or just plain making golf courses longer doesn't help foster the style of play you desire which rewards accuracy, strategy etc. You seem to want links type courses that have lots of run and wide fairways when no matter what, that plays into the long ball style of play.

 

Shorter, tighter, more curvy courses will net you the skilled, calculated, and careful style of play that I feel people like you want to see again. So if we bring up the ball roll back idea, it will make length off the tee and length in general, even more important. I think even you would agree, it isn't fair to limit the high swing speed player and not everyone. You can't specifically and artificially penalize the longer player by designing a ball that only hurts them and doesn't hurt the slower swing guy. That just isn't fair. I beleive you have brought this particular idea up before. If it wasn't you my bad.

 

To summarize, if you make courses short, tighter, windy etc, then that essentially can level the playing field. Long players will still have some opportunities to score where others maybe can't, not to mention longer players can nuke a shorter and higher lofted club to hold a green than a shorter player can. There is still advantage to long players, but there is reasonable opportunity for the shorter ones.

 

Edit: Made things more readable lol. I need a new phone, my thumbs are too fat.

[bigred90gt]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

 

Courses have been changed in response to one or two players in the past, or so the common theme on here states. I am basing what I said off that. Arnie greening whatever hole on whatever course, Tiger not hitting into a single bunker at The Old Course.

 

No, I don't think that there is any evidence for that. I really thought you were going to cite "Tigerproofing" at Augusta, which is a myth. ANGC didn't make many changes at all, immediately following Tiger Woods' 1997 win. The course changed much more dramatically in the early 2000's in response to the introduction of the Pro V1.

 

Arnold Palmer's driving the First green in the 1960 US Open was from 346 yards. With some rather good rollout to make it onto the green. (The hole is perfect for a Palmer baby-draw.) The hole is now 389 yards, but basically every hole that could be lengthened at Cherry Hills has been lengthened. Because of modern distances in general, and not Palmer.

but that is EXACTLY what you have said you want to see! It is the root of your “problem”, but you refuse to open your eyes and see it. The excessive rollout due to fairways that play more like greens on most courses are undoubtedly the biggest contributor to distance. Watch any golf tournament, and tell me how many times you see a ball roll more than 50 yards. Short of a rain soaked course, it happens week in and week out. Again I will use Matsuyama’s 3 wood in Dallas. Flew maybe 280-285, finished at 349. And you think the “firm and fast” is what the game needs, yet the ball is going too far? How can you not see the incredible contradiction there?

[heavy_hitter]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

 

Courses have been changed in response to one or two players in the past, or so the common theme on here states. I am basing what I said off that. Arnie greening whatever hole on whatever course, Tiger not hitting into a single bunker at The Old Course.

 

No, I don't think that there is any evidence for that. I really thought you were going to cite "Tigerproofing" at Augusta, which is a myth. ANGC didn't make many changes at all, immediately following Tiger Woods' 1997 win. The course changed much more dramatically in the early 2000's in response to the introduction of the Pro V1.

 

Arnold Palmer's driving the First green in the 1960 US Open was from 346 yards. With some rather good rollout to make it onto the green. (The hole is perfect for a Palmer baby-draw.) The hole is now 389 yards, but basically every hole that could be lengthened at Cherry Hills has been lengthened. Because of modern distances in general, and not Palmer.

but that is EXACTLY what you have said you want to see! It is the root of your "problem", but you refuse to open your eyes and see it. The excessive rollout due to fairways that play more like greens on most courses are undoubtedly the biggest contributor to distance. Watch any golf tournament, and tell me how many times you see a ball roll more than 50 yards. Short of a rain soaked course, it happens week in and week out. Again I will use Matsuyama's 3 wood in Dallas. Flew maybe 280-285, finished at 349. And you think the "firm and fast" is what the game needs, yet the ball is going too far? How can you not see the incredible contradiction there?

 

Exactly. I don't know of a course in Florida that my kid has played and has gotten more than 30 yards roll out. It has rained where we live in Florida everyday for the past three weeks. Basically, everyday the month of May it has rained. In the month of April playing hole 1 on our course my kid average around 125 in to the green on number 1. After the rains he is averaging 145 into the same exact hole.

 

Soften the fairways and lengthen the grass. That will have the same effect as changing the ball.

[15th Club]

...

...

...

 

But you are criticizing the USGA for... what, exactly?

 

There isn't any ball rollback proposal. I've said this many times. There is no active spec proposal; no prototypes; nothing on which to base any complaints about what it might do to certain recreational players, or Tour players, or television ratings or anything else. The USGA has done nothing so far other than to say very clearly that they perceive a potential problem, and they are studying it, and oh by the way if you want to tell the USGA what you are thinking they've given you a link to a message page where you can do that.

 

For that, the USGA is getting criticized?

 

The USGA and the R&A set forth a Joint Statement of Principles in 2002. Stating that any further increases in distance would be undesirable.

 

In 2002, the longest driver on Tour was the athlete John Daly at 306, the number 50 driver was Michael Allen at 285, and Tiger Woods was sixth, at 293.

 

In 2018, the longest driver on Tour is Trey Mullinax at 320, the number 50 driver is Martin Laird at 300, and the post-op Tiger Woods is T-24 at 305.

 

The USGA has done nothing, other than to say, uh, we're looking at those numbers.

 

Correction, they said any further "significant increases in distance". As I already pointed out from the 2017 distance report, there has been an increase in average distance on the PGA tour of approximately 6 yards from (if memory serves me) 287 to 293, which is 2%. 2% is far from significant when you are talking about 287 as a baseline, so by their own statement, there is nothing undesirable and nothing to be concerned about.

 

Wrong; and the USGA described the basis for their concern:

 

 

The 2015 and 2016 editions of the distance report presented the increases in driving distance since 2003 as a slow creep of around 0.2 yards per year. The 2017 data show a deviation from this trend. The average distance gain across the seven worldwide tours was more than 3 yards since 2016.

 

As noted in previous annual reports, variability in driving distance of 4 or more yards from season to season on any one tour is not uncommon. However, this level of increase across so many tours in a single season is unusual and concerning, and requires closer inspection and monitoring to fully understand the causes and effects.

 

As the review of this issue progresses, the USGA and The R&A remain committed to the spirit of the 2002 Joint Statement of Principles, which recognizes that distance impacts many aspects of golf and that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable.

 

Increases in distance can contribute to demands for longer, tougher and more resource-intensive golf courses at all levels of the game. These trends can impact the costs to operate golf courses and put additional pressures on golf courses in their local environmental landscape. The effect of increasing distance on the balance between skill and technology is also a key consideration. Maintaining this balance is paramount to preserving the integrity of golf.

 

Building on the extensive research we have undertaken in recent years, we will conduct a thoughtful conversation about the effects of distance prior to making any specific proposals. We remain open-minded and our absolute priority is to ensure that all key stakeholders are involved in an open and inclusive process, and that we move forward together in the best interests of golf at all levels. There is no fixed timetable, but we will commence this process immediately and endeavor to reach a conclusion as promptly as possible.

 

In conjunction with the publication of the 2017 distance research report, The R&A and USGA are carrying out a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of increased distance on both the playing and overall health of golf.

 

The USGA and The R&A intend to consolidate previous work conducted by the two organizations, as well as others in the golf industry, regarding the effect of distance on the footprint and playing of the game, conduct new research on these same topics to augment the current state of knowledge of the issues, and, most importantly, in the coming months, engage with stakeholders throughout the golf industry to develop a comprehensive understanding of perspectives on distance. Additional information on this stakeholder engagement will be made available in due course.

 

Link to full report. To put it more simply and bluntly, the USGA was less concerned about a "creep" of something like .2 yards per year on average, but 3 yards in a single season (2016 to 2017) got their attention. And not to leap into some action based on a single year, but rather to do more study.

 

To be sure; Titleist is eager to defeat any rollback proposals and wants to defend the technological status quo that has the Pro V in a preeminent market position. And Titleist wasted no time in arguing that the 2017 majors featured venues where driving distance saw big gains: Erin Hills (20 yards); Birkdale (8 yards) and Quail Hollow (7 yards) over the previous year's major venues (Oakmont, Troon and Baltusrol). What I'd say to Titleist is that if we had even bigger courses, the distance gains might even be more! The USGA is now looking carefully at whether driver, or something less than driver, is being used for purposes of calculating distance gains. And we know what direction that is going. "Less than driver" percentage is up, and is rising.

 

And so now, we get to watch what happens in 2018.

 

I say again; all of the whining about the USGA is based on the USGA having done little more, so far, than studying the issue and writing some reports.

[QuigleyDU]

...

...

...

 

But you are criticizing the USGA for... what, exactly?

 

There isn't any ball rollback proposal. I've said this many times. There is no active spec proposal; no prototypes; nothing on which to base any complaints about what it might do to certain recreational players, or Tour players, or television ratings or anything else. The USGA has done nothing so far other than to say very clearly that they perceive a potential problem, and they are studying it, and oh by the way if you want to tell the USGA what you are thinking they've given you a link to a message page where you can do that.

 

For that, the USGA is getting criticized?

 

The USGA and the R&A set forth a Joint Statement of Principles in 2002. Stating that any further increases in distance would be undesirable.

 

In 2002, the longest driver on Tour was the athlete John Daly at 306, the number 50 driver was Michael Allen at 285, and Tiger Woods was sixth, at 293.

 

In 2018, the longest driver on Tour is Trey Mullinax at 320, the number 50 driver is Martin Laird at 300, and the post-op Tiger Woods is T-24 at 305.

 

The USGA has done nothing, other than to say, uh, we're looking at those numbers.

 

Correction, they said any further "significant increases in distance". As I already pointed out from the 2017 distance report, there has been an increase in average distance on the PGA tour of approximately 6 yards from (if memory serves me) 287 to 293, which is 2%. 2% is far from significant when you are talking about 287 as a baseline, so by their own statement, there is nothing undesirable and nothing to be concerned about.

 

Wrong; and the USGA described the basis for their concern:

 

 

The 2015 and 2016 editions of the distance report presented the increases in driving distance since 2003 as a slow creep of around 0.2 yards per year. The 2017 data show a deviation from this trend. The average distance gain across the seven worldwide tours was more than 3 yards since 2016.

 

As noted in previous annual reports, variability in driving distance of 4 or more yards from season to season on any one tour is not uncommon. However, this level of increase across so many tours in a single season is unusual and concerning, and requires closer inspection and monitoring to fully understand the causes and effects.

 

As the review of this issue progresses, the USGA and The R&A remain committed to the spirit of the 2002 Joint Statement of Principles, which recognizes that distance impacts many aspects of golf and that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable.

 

Increases in distance can contribute to demands for longer, tougher and more resource-intensive golf courses at all levels of the game. These trends can impact the costs to operate golf courses and put additional pressures on golf courses in their local environmental landscape. The effect of increasing distance on the balance between skill and technology is also a key consideration. Maintaining this balance is paramount to preserving the integrity of golf.

 

Building on the extensive research we have undertaken in recent years, we will conduct a thoughtful conversation about the effects of distance prior to making any specific proposals. We remain open-minded and our absolute priority is to ensure that all key stakeholders are involved in an open and inclusive process, and that we move forward together in the best interests of golf at all levels. There is no fixed timetable, but we will commence this process immediately and endeavor to reach a conclusion as promptly as possible.

 

In conjunction with the publication of the 2017 distance research report, The R&A and USGA are carrying out a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of increased distance on both the playing and overall health of golf.

 

The USGA and The R&A intend to consolidate previous work conducted by the two organizations, as well as others in the golf industry, regarding the effect of distance on the footprint and playing of the game, conduct new research on these same topics to augment the current state of knowledge of the issues, and, most importantly, in the coming months, engage with stakeholders throughout the golf industry to develop a comprehensive understanding of perspectives on distance. Additional information on this stakeholder engagement will be made available in due course.

 

Link to full report. To put it more simply and bluntly, the USGA was less concerned about a "creep" of something like .2 yards per year on average, but 3 yards in a single season (2016 to 2017) got their attention. And not to leap into some action based on a single year, but rather to do more study.

 

To be sure; Titleist is eager to defeat any rollback proposals and wants to defend the technological status quo that has the Pro V in a preeminent market position. And Titleist wasted no time in arguing that the 2017 majors featured venues where driving distance saw big gains: Erin Hills (20 yards); Birkdale (8 yards) and Quail Hollow (7 yards) over the previous year's major venues (Oakmont, Troon and Baltusrol). What I'd say to Titleist is that if we had even bigger courses, the distance gains might even be more! The USGA is now looking carefully at whether driver, or something less than driver, is being used for purposes of calculating distance gains. And we know what direction that is going. "Less than driver" percentage is up, and is rising.

 

And so now, we get to watch what happens in 2018.

 

I say again; all of the whining about the USGA is based on the USGA having done little more, so far, than studying the issue and writing some reports.

 

3 yards i literally, and i mean literally nothing when it comes to actual play. That difference does not even change the club you would hit!!. they need to stop just looking at numbers.

[15th Club]

My problem with this response is that I don't believe they needed to touch it really. They can tweak if they want but really, they respond usually to one or two players, playing the course not as intended. That player or players make it look easy, so they be like, OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!! When in reality they don't.

 

When has that ever happened? A major tournament course set up with one player in mind?

 

Courses have been changed in response to one or two players in the past, or so the common theme on here states. I am basing what I said off that. Arnie greening whatever hole on whatever course, Tiger not hitting into a single bunker at The Old Course.

 

No, I don't think that there is any evidence for that. I really thought you were going to cite "Tigerproofing" at Augusta, which is a myth. ANGC didn't make many changes at all, immediately following Tiger Woods' 1997 win. The course changed much more dramatically in the early 2000's in response to the introduction of the Pro V1.

 

Arnold Palmer's driving the First green in the 1960 US Open was from 346 yards. With some rather good rollout to make it onto the green. (The hole is perfect for a Palmer baby-draw.) The hole is now 389 yards, but basically every hole that could be lengthened at Cherry Hills has been lengthened. Because of modern distances in general, and not Palmer.

but that is EXACTLY what you have said you want to see! It is the root of your "problem", but you refuse to open your eyes and see it. The excessive rollout due to fairways that play more like greens on most courses are undoubtedly the biggest contributor to distance. Watch any golf tournament, and tell me how many times you see a ball roll more than 50 yards. Short of a rain soaked course, it happens week in and week out. Again I will use Matsuyama's 3 wood in Dallas. Flew maybe 280-285, finished at 349. And you think the "firm and fast" is what the game needs, yet the ball is going too far? How can you not see the incredible contradiction there?

 

I don't see any "contradiction" at all. I see "pressure." There is increasing pressure, to roll back the golf balls. The clubs are getting better; the launch monitors are getting better; the athletes (they say) are getting better; and the architects rightly tell us that the tricks that have been going on for many years to artificially battle distance gains in golf, are mostly all bad ideas. Across the board, the architects are suggesting fewer trees, for better turfgrass growth and better angles of play. They are suggesting bunkers that collect errant, rolling balls. Instead of little islands of sand amid thick rough. They want to create angles and choices, to emphasize strategic thinking. The architects understand the genius of the ground game. They are reminding us of the genius of places like Royal Melbourne and Dornoch and The Old Course where the ground game is such a critical, integral feature of play.

 

All of this increases the pressure, for there to be a ball rollback.

 

And no, I don't agree that any good answer to increased distance, from whatever cause (balls, clubs, golfers, launch monitors) involves doing tricks to the golf course to make things harder. The cheapest and easiest thing is to fix the balls. And while we're at it, I don't consider modern agronomy to be much of a problem at all. We should always try to set up golf courses to play as firm and as fast as possible, because that is the best golf. Everything else is secondary to that aim.

[bigred90gt]

...

...

...

 

But you are criticizing the USGA for... what, exactly?

 

There isn't any ball rollback proposal. I've said this many times. There is no active spec proposal; no prototypes; nothing on which to base any complaints about what it might do to certain recreational players, or Tour players, or television ratings or anything else. The USGA has done nothing so far other than to say very clearly that they perceive a potential problem, and they are studying it, and oh by the way if you want to tell the USGA what you are thinking they've given you a link to a message page where you can do that.

 

For that, the USGA is getting criticized?

 

The USGA and the R&A set forth a Joint Statement of Principles in 2002. Stating that any further increases in distance would be undesirable.

 

In 2002, the longest driver on Tour was the athlete John Daly at 306, the number 50 driver was Michael Allen at 285, and Tiger Woods was sixth, at 293.

 

In 2018, the longest driver on Tour is Trey Mullinax at 320, the number 50 driver is Martin Laird at 300, and the post-op Tiger Woods is T-24 at 305.

 

The USGA has done nothing, other than to say, uh, we're looking at those numbers.

 

Correction, they said any further "significant increases in distance". As I already pointed out from the 2017 distance report, there has been an increase in average distance on the PGA tour of approximately 6 yards from (if memory serves me) 287 to 293, which is 2%. 2% is far from significant when you are talking about 287 as a baseline, so by their own statement, there is nothing undesirable and nothing to be concerned about.

 

Wrong; and the USGA described the basis for their concern:

 

 

The 2015 and 2016 editions of the distance report presented the increases in driving distance since 2003 as a slow creep of around 0.2 yards per year. The 2017 data show a deviation from this trend. The average distance gain across the seven worldwide tours was more than 3 yards since 2016.

 

As noted in previous annual reports, variability in driving distance of 4 or more yards from season to season on any one tour is not uncommon. However, this level of increase across so many tours in a single season is unusual and concerning, and requires closer inspection and monitoring to fully understand the causes and effects.

 

As the review of this issue progresses, the USGA and The R&A remain committed to the spirit of the 2002 Joint Statement of Principles, which recognizes that distance impacts many aspects of golf and that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable.

 

Increases in distance can contribute to demands for longer, tougher and more resource-intensive golf courses at all levels of the game. These trends can impact the costs to operate golf courses and put additional pressures on golf courses in their local environmental landscape. The effect of increasing distance on the balance between skill and technology is also a key consideration. Maintaining this balance is paramount to preserving the integrity of golf.

 

Building on the extensive research we have undertaken in recent years, we will conduct a thoughtful conversation about the effects of distance prior to making any specific proposals. We remain open-minded and our absolute priority is to ensure that all key stakeholders are involved in an open and inclusive process, and that we move forward together in the best interests of golf at all levels. There is no fixed timetable, but we will commence this process immediately and endeavor to reach a conclusion as promptly as possible.

 

In conjunction with the publication of the 2017 distance research report, The R&A and USGA are carrying out a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of increased distance on both the playing and overall health of golf.

 

The USGA and The R&A intend to consolidate previous work conducted by the two organizations, as well as others in the golf industry, regarding the effect of distance on the footprint and playing of the game, conduct new research on these same topics to augment the current state of knowledge of the issues, and, most importantly, in the coming months, engage with stakeholders throughout the golf industry to develop a comprehensive understanding of perspectives on distance. Additional information on this stakeholder engagement will be made available in due course.

 

Link to full report. To put it more simply and bluntly, the USGA was less concerned about a "creep" of something like .2 yards per year on average, but 3 yards in a single season (2016 to 2017) got their attention. And not to leap into some action based on a single year, but rather to do more study.

 

To be sure; Titleist is eager to defeat any rollback proposals and wants to defend the technological status quo that has the Pro V in a preeminent market position. And Titleist wasted no time in arguing that the 2017 majors featured venues where driving distance saw big gains: Erin Hills (20 yards); Birkdale (8 yards) and Quail Hollow (7 yards) over the previous year's major venues (Oakmont, Troon and Baltusrol). What I'd say to Titleist is that if we had even bigger courses, the distance gains might even be more! The USGA is now looking carefully at whether driver, or something less than driver, is being used for purposes of calculating distance gains. And we know what direction that is going. "Less than driver" percentage is up, and is rising.

 

And so now, we get to watch what happens in 2018.

 

I say again; all of the whining about the USGA is based on the USGA having done little more, so far, than studying the issue and writing some reports.

Uhhhh, I’m not wrong, you can check the math if you please.

 

2003 to 2016 is 13 years. .2 yards per year comes to 2.6 yards. Add 3 more from 2016-2017 and you have 5.6 yards. So actually, I was wrong, it is .4 yards LESS than the 6 I stated. And it still holds true that a 2% increase over a 15 year period is not significant. So, how again am I wrong?

[clevited]

 

I don't see any "contradiction" at all. I see "pressure." There is increasing pressure, to roll back the golf balls. The clubs are getting better; the launch monitors are getting better; the athletes (they say) are getting better; and the architects rightly tell us that the tricks that have been going on for many years to artificially battle distance gains in golf, are mostly all bad ideas. Across the board, the architects are suggesting fewer trees, for better turfgrass growth and better angles of play. They are suggesting bunkers that collect errant, rolling balls. Instead of little islands of sand amid thick rough. They want to create angles and choices, to emphasize strategic thinking. The architects understand the genius of the ground game. They are reminding us of the genius of places like Royal Melbourne and Dornoch and The Old Course where the ground game is such a critical, integral feature of play.

 

All of this increases the pressure, for there to be a ball rollback.

 

And no, I don't agree that any good answer to increased distance, from whatever cause (balls, clubs, golfers, launch monitors) involves doing tricks to the golf course to make things harder. The cheapest and easiest thing is to fix the balls. And while we're at it, I don't consider modern agronomy to be much of a problem at all. We should always try to set up golf courses to play as firm and as fast as possible, because that is the best golf. Everything else is secondary to that aim.

 

Extremely flawed opinion as many very intelligent and big picture thinking posters have pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over....(two days later)...and over again.

[15th Club]

3 yards i literally, and i mean literally nothing when it comes to actual play. That difference does not even change the

club

you would hit!!. they need to stop just looking at numbers.

 

And so the USGA is careful. A single outlying 3 yard gain on one tour in one year might not be concerning. But 3 yards over all tours, and 3 yards a year for several years, might be concerning. And the 2017 Distance Report says just that.

[bigred90gt]

 

 

I don't see any "contradiction" at all. I see "pressure." There is increasing pressure, to roll back the golf balls. The clubs are getting better; the launch monitors are getting better; the athletes (they say) are getting better; and the architects rightly tell us that the tricks that have been going on for many years to artificially battle distance gains in golf, are mostly all bad ideas. Across the board, the architects are suggesting fewer trees, for better turfgrass growth and better angles of play. They are suggesting bunkers that collect errant, rolling balls. Instead of little islands of sand amid thick rough. They want to create angles and choices, to emphasize strategic thinking. The architects understand the genius of the ground game. They are reminding us of the genius of places like Royal Melbourne and Dornoch and The Old Course where the ground game is such a critical, integral feature of play.

 

All of this increases the pressure, for there to be a ball rollback.

 

And no, I don't agree that any good answer to increased distance, from whatever cause (balls, clubs, golfers, launch monitors) involves doing tricks to the golf course to make things harder. The cheapest and easiest thing is to fix the balls. And while we're at it, I don't consider modern agronomy to be much of a problem at all. We should always try to set up golf courses to play as firm and as fast as possible, because that is the best golf. Everything else is secondary to that aim.

 

You are so blinded by your hatred for things you cannot do (hitting the ball a long way, obviously) that you can’t see the hypocrisy in your statements. Raising the height of the mower is not a “trick to make things harder”. Re-engineering the golf ball is not the “cheapest and easiest thing to fix”. How you cannot see that, I will never know.

 

No matter what happens with the ball, the “ground Game” with firm and fast that YOU think is “the best golf”, and anything else is “secondary to that aim” is YOUR opinion. But regardless of that, it will never again be played that way, and hasn’t for a very very long time. Players will always maximize launch and spin conditions, regardless of what ball they are using, to get the most carry out of the ball. They will not suddenly change the way they play the game if the ball travels less distance. The ONLY way to combat what very VERY few see as a problem, is to stop making the fairways play like greens. Longer grass at a minimum. I realize softening the fairways requires additional water, which is why I’m not advocating for that. But, mowing the grass to a taller height literally requires nothing more than adjusting a lever on the mowers, and will reduce the distance that some people feel is concerning.

[North Butte]

A few loudmouths bellowing on social media are considering themselves to constitute "increasing pressure". It's like when you ignore a 3-year-old's temper tantrum, after a few minutes he pauses for breath and thinks if he just screams EVEN LOUDER he'll be sure to get his way.

 

The only thing increasing here is 15th club's post count. If this doesn't work, is he going to start posting 100 times/day instead of just 30?

[gvogel]

41 pages of arguments both for and against, and we really don't know what we are arguing about.

 

I do know this: in 2007 Titleist patented a reduced distance ball. Whether they made such a ball in response to a request from the USGA, or whether they simply decided to patent a ball just in case, is not clear. I assume other ball companies have developed such an option.

 

I believe that the Ohio Open was played with a reduced distance ball one year some time ago, but I cannot find anything on the internet that discusses the results. Perhaps I dreamt that.

 

There is a company named Pointfive which makes a reduced distance ball - flies 60% according to their website. I bought a dozen. Might try them on an executive course nearby.

 

It would certainly be nice to know if the USGA has tests with very good players playing a reduced distance ball on shorter courses.

[clevited]

I hope I can post text from an article without breaking some kind of rule on these forums. Here is a quote from an opinion column I found. It is from several years back but still extremely relevant I feel.

Yes, the ball goes farther and, yes, equipment is better. But Hall of Fame course architect Pete Dye was asked more than once what was the greatest technological breakthrough in golf in the 20th century and his answer was “the lawn mower.” Fairways are mowed closer today on Tour than greens were cut in the 1960s and ‘70s. Greens stimped about six or seven in those days. Some Tour fairways today are faster than that.

You don’t get that much roll at your course because the superintendent cares what the course looks like and plays like every week of the year, not just one. Members at clubs where the Tour plays by and large hate the Tour coming to town because it ruins their course the day after it leaves. Fairways and greens are so starved for water prior to and during tournament week that they practically brown out before your very eyes.

Whether you know it or not, Tour players have a hand in the way tournament courses are set up. They want their courses firm and fast and they claim it’s because tee shots can bounce through doglegs and into the rough. Don’t buy it. “Firm and fast” is a euphemism for “deep and low.” Drives go deep and scores go low when courses are set up the way they like.

At your course, your superintendent keeps water on the fairways and greens to keep grass healthy and growing. If your super let your course get the way Tour courses do the day after the pros leave, you’d fire him before sundown. Firm and fast means dead and gone, especially in the summer heat.

If you want a real measuring stick for how far Tour players drive the ball, look at the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am. The three host courses – Pebble Beach, Spyglass Hill and Del Monte – are in the moist Monterey Peninsula that makes conditions soft and spongy. Driving distances at Pebble in February are in the 260- to 270-yard neighborhood for most of the field because the guys get practically no roll on those fairways. If the weather gets real wet, look for the PGA Tour field staff to move tees forward on the longest holes. They don’t want players to hit long irons and hybrids to par-4 holes.

Link: http://www.globalgolfpost.com/now/2010/01/18/firm-and-fast-equals-long-and-wrong

[bigred90gt]

3 yards i literally, and i mean literally nothing when it comes to actual play. That difference does not even change the

club

you would hit!!. they need to stop just looking at numbers.

 

And so the USGA is careful. A single outlying 3 yard gain on one tour in one year might not be concerning. But 3 yards over all tours, and 3 yards a year for several years, might be concerning. And the 2017 Distance Report says just that.

There is not a single span that shows a 3 yard increase per year over several years in that report man. Don’t make up your own facts.