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

[buckeyefl]

You can't blame a Dustin Johnson or a Brooks Kopeka for taking advantage of the technology and fitness to hit the ball as far as they can.

 

And nobody is "blaming" them for that. It is simply time to seriously deal with the technology that allows it. Nobody has any concern, about their athleticism.

 

 

 

Yes, there have been and will continue to be courses that will be obsoleted by the changes.

 

Well, when it comes to Merion, and lots of intercollegiate golf courses, and The Old Course and indeed the entire rota of Open courses; yeah, it is time to draw a line.

 

Opinion. Minority opinion based on the top .0001% of golfers

[DFS PFD]

Why does The Old Course have to be the standard of golf for the foreseeable future, why shouldn't golf evolve (read develop) with the rest of modern society (I.E baseball and polo grounds)? The Old Course will always be the home of golf, but that doesn't mean it needs to be the indefinite home of the USGA standards.

[AceCatKY]

Why does The Old Course have to be the standard of golf for the foreseeable future, why shouldn't golf evolve (read develop) with the rest of modern society (I.E baseball and polo grounds)? The Old Course will always be the home of golf, but that doesn't mean it needs to be the indefinite home of the USGA standards.

 

Because cranky middle aged persons don't have enough to complain about; so contrived non-existent "problems" are manufactured to "fix the game".

[The Pearl]

You don't see the NBA raising the rims to 12 feet because too many people are dunking...

 

I like picking apart things like this, that seem at first blush to be reasonable. It's not reasonable.

 

The way that we would really make such a comparison, between golf and basketball, would be if there had been some new shoe technology, that assisted NBA players to jump two feet higher. And basketball fans all said, "Hey, that is cool! Why not go with it? Jumping high is great for tv; the fans love it. It's exciting." And then, when it gets to be ridiculous with half the baskets being made as dunks, and the game slows down with multiple fouls (as the only way to stop dunks), then somebody says, "Why not just raise the baskets by two feet?"

 

Now THAT is much closer to what we are discussing with a golf ball rollback.

 

Shoe technology has made a significant difference in how NBA basketball is being played. You would see a totally different game if the player's were forced to wear canvas Chuck Taylor All-Stars. The courts themselves are significantly better than when they played in the 70s/80s when the court was simply laid over the hockey rinks.

[bulls9999]

I like this kind of thinking. (Same thing with the Ammendments to the constitution).

 

Why does The Old Course have to be the standard of golf for the foreseeable future, why shouldn't golf evolve (read develop) with the rest of modern society (I.E baseball and polo grounds)? The Old Course will always be the home of golf, but that doesn't mean it needs to be the indefinite home of the USGA standards.

[Togatown22]

Wait, you said "a couple"! Alright, you can have one more shot at it. But no, distance increases are not "easily offset" by longer rough and firmer greens. They already firm up the greens at every Tour stop. We mortals have no idea, how hard those greens are, without a big rain. (And the possibility of rain is a good reason to keep a course as dry and as firm and as fast as possible.) But beyond that, it is not easy, or inexpensive, or good for the game, to trick up golf courses in order to use those tricks to combat technological distance. The better, easier, cheaper thing BY FAR is to just correct the golf ball distance problem by changing the balls.

 

Or just grow the fairway grass longer, you know, the way fairways were cut when these courses were originally built.

 

"When these courses were originally built," most of them had no underground watering at all for their fairways. Depending on the weather, they might have been even faster on the fairways than what we see today.

 

Depending on the weather? Yeah, depending on the weather many course conditions vary from faster to slower - 100 years ago and today. Overall, modern agronomy allows fairways to be mowed extremely low and kept fast. It's incredible to me how much run out these guys get on their drives.

 

Firm and fast fairways are good! What is not to like about firm and fast fairways? Firm and fast fairways force players to think; think about how a ball will move once it is on the ground. Think about how to play the angles, and set up the next shot. Firm and fast adds to the mental part of the game, it is another dimension of strategy and planning and shot-shaping.

 

We want courses to be as firm and as fast as possible; and we can fix any consequent distance problems by fixing that really inconsequential part of the distance equation, which is the golf ball. Making the courses faster, and the balls slower = big fun.

 

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the ball than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

[15th Club]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

[North Butte]

As I say in all these threads, Mike Davis wants it all. He wants to use classic courses, firm them up so the ball runs 40+ yards on every tee shot, move a couple of Par 4 tees up 80 yards to make "driveable" holes, keep the Par at 70 or 71 and still have the winning score for the best players in the world under ideal conditions be a couple under Par for four rounds.

 

So of course he wants them to use a whiffle ball. It's the only conceivable way to eat his cake and have it too. Tricking up a course like that and forcing the elite players to shoot around par would require a 10,000 yard course (if they play real golf with the real ball).

[Togatown22]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

[MidwestGolfBum]

It would be nice to see professional golfers using more then the high lofted wedges or irons to reach the green, and use a 4, 5, or 6 iron to reach the green.

 

Why?

 

what's a "6" iron anyway? in 2018 it's like 26 degrees. in 1988 it was 32 degrees. Assuming the announcers even club them right, a 7 iron might be 30 degrees in that dude's bag

 

I know you guys have continued this discussion later in the thread, but I still hit a 31 degree 6 iron in 2018.

 

Rolling back the golf ball, as I have said so many times I have had this discussion and 15 always comes in and tells me that I'm wrong, because of a few of the golf courses in the world that are played in pristine conditions by the best players in the world just simply doesn't make sense. Sure, I hit the ball farther than some, but my argument comes, and will continue to come, that the only people who they are trying to hurt with the ball rollback is those people who have found a way to swing a club faster than others while maintaining some control over where their ball is going. They want to level the playing field so that the guy who swings his driver 100MPH doesn't feel like he has to swing out of his shoes to "keep up" with the guy who can swing at 120MPH.

[The Pearl]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" has made an all in assumption that by rolling the ball back that the great courses and par will be protected. I believe they are underestimating other factors, perhaps in a significant way. If the long hitters are suddenly hitting a two extra clubs into par 4s and par 5s is it really going to change things significantly? Give it a few years and these guys are going to figure out how to beat that game too.

[MidwestGolfBum]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" has made an all in assumption that by rolling the ball back that the great courses and par will be protected. I believe they are underestimating other factors, perhaps in a significant way. If the long hitters are suddenly hitting a two extra clubs into par 4s and par 5s is it really going to change things significantly? Give it a few years and these guys are going to figure out how to beat that game too.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" wants to level the playing field. Anybody with a SS over some number (Bob Ford says 108) will have their distance go down and those with SS under that will not see the decrease. Everybody gets to hit from a more tightly grouped area and we, the viewer, get to enjoy seeing it or something along those lines.

[15th Club]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" has made an all in assumption that by rolling the ball back that the great courses and par will be protected. I believe they are underestimating other factors, perhaps in a significant way. If the long hitters are suddenly hitting a two extra clubs into par 4s and par 5s is it really going to change things significantly? Give it a few years and these guys are going to figure out how to beat that game too.

 

 

So the part of your comment that I highlighted; you seem to be saying -- to all of the people commenting here and imploring the USGA to just leave things the way they are -- that "leaving things the way they are" will never work, because the incipient genius of technical R&D, and ever-rising athletic abilities, will eventually find a way to overcome any obstacle. You seem to be saying that we can never really just leave things the way that they are at present. It won't work. It's a fool's errand.

 

For my part, Pearl, I think I agree with you. I might state it differently, however. With your indulgence, I'll give it a try: Yes, technology is ever-evolving and we can't and shouldn't try to shut it down altogether. And yes, athleticism is something that we all should embrace and encourage, and not try to suppress. But neither one of those principles bars us from protecting the great historic venues of championship golf. We can roll back the balls, and the best players will still win. We could limit the number of clubs to seven, or expand the number of clubs to 21, and the best players will still win (hopefully). We could play on a 4,000-yard course, or a 10,000-yard course, and the best players will still win.

 

Doing all of those things changes the nature of the game, however, right?

 

And understanding that new technology issues will always pop up no matter what any of us thinks today, and understanding that athletes of the future will always do amazing things, we can still intelligently tailor rules to encourage a certain kind of a game, on venues that we already know and love. We will always, always, always need to keep tinkering with the equipment rules in light of all of that.

[North Butte]

Isn't this the point in the thread where everyone votes on exactly where we want Dustin Johnson's driving distance rolled back to?

 

I vote for Jack Nicklaus circa 1980.

 

Any votes for Tiger Woods circa 2000? Ben Hogan circa 1960? Bobby Jones circa 1920? Sam Snead circa 1940?

[MtlJeff]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" has made an all in assumption that by rolling the ball back that the great courses and par will be protected. I believe they are underestimating other factors, perhaps in a significant way. If the long hitters are suddenly hitting a two extra clubs into par 4s and par 5s is it really going to change things significantly? Give it a few years and these guys are going to figure out how to beat that game too.

 

Have said this many times too. Watch a ReMax event and there's guys who swing 130+ with pretty decent golf swings.

 

Rolling back the ball could be tiger proofing all over again in that it emphasizes even more the thing it's trying to temper

 

And then 15-20 years from now the tour is full of Dustin Johnson's who swing 130, and you roll back the ball again?

 

Keep daring people to advance themselves physically and they will do it. I believe a major reason we are even in this mess is tiger proofing. Before that how many guys on tour worked out the way they did now?

[15th Club]

Isn't this the point in the thread where everyone votes on exactly where we want Dustin Johnson's driving distance rolled back to?

 

I vote for Jack Nicklaus circa 1980.

 

Any votes for Tiger Woods circa 2000? Ben Hogan circa 1960? Bobby Jones circa 1920? Sam Snead circa 1940?

 

I might answer, if I thought for a moment that it was a serious, non-sarcastic, question.

[15th Club]

I personally have no problem with firm and fast fairways, just giving you an easy option to solve your "problem". For you to say it's easier to regulate/change the

ball

than to simply grow some grass: I just don't agree with you. I do see how it fits your narrative though.

 

I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was fairway grass. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players carry the ball too far nowadays, and the rollout is incidental. Slowing down fairways is not good; it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

Fair enough. And I might just be forced to agree with you, if the only problem with technologically-produced distance in elite golf was the golf ball. But it isn't. And it isn't even a problem. Players are overall better athletes nowadays. They train better, eat better, prepare better, and as a consequence, hit the ball farther. Kids who are actual athletes play golf now, I see it at the large (125+ kids) junior program at my club. It's awesome. They learn to swing hard first and straighten it out later. Technological advances in clubs, shafts, even golf shoes have given players better speed and balance. Heck; even club fitting helps people pick up significant distance. Slowing down the golf ball is not good, it isn't even a neutral thing. It's a bad thing.

 

The "roll back the ball crowd" has made an all in assumption that by rolling the ball back that the great courses and par will be protected. I believe they are underestimating other factors, perhaps in a significant way. If the long hitters are suddenly hitting a two extra clubs into par 4s and par 5s is it really going to change things significantly? Give it a few years and these guys are going to figure out how to beat that game too.

 

Have said this many times too. Watch a ReMax event and there's guys who swing 130+ with pretty decent golf swings.

 

Rolling back the ball could be tiger proofing all over again in that it emphasizes even more the thing it's trying to temper

 

And then 15-20 years from now the tour is full of Dustin Johnson's who swing 130, and you roll back the ball again?

 

Keep daring people to advance themselves physically and they will do it. I believe a major reason we are even in this mess is tiger proofing. Before that how many guys on tour worked out the way they did now?

 

 

Huh? I don't even know what exactly "tiger proofing" is!

 

We are in an era, where balls have been manufactured to produce a relatively low spin when struck very hard with a low-loft club, and relatively higher spin when struck with a higher loft club at lower speeds. (Please note, "relatively.") And that has encouraged a generation of players to swing harder. It has, in a way, encouraged more dominance by athletes with a lot of leverage and swing speed.

 

And frankly, I don't care. I don't care who wins. Whether it is a bomber like Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka, or a careful spinner like Boo Weekly or Luke Donald.

 

All that I care about, is that all the players fit comfortably on golf courses that we understand, historically.

 

As for whether a ball rollback in, say, 2020, will need to be followed by another ball rollback in 2050... ? I dunno. Maybe. I couldn't care less about that. Why should anybody care? I don't want repeated ball rollbacks if they aren't really necessary. But if they are necessary, we could impose them in 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050 and 2060, and I would not care.

[gvogel]

As I say in all these threads, Mike Davis wants it all. He wants to use classic courses, firm them up so the ball runs 40+ yards on every tee shot, move a couple of Par 4 tees up 80 yards to make "driveable" holes, keep the Par at 70 or 71 and still have the winning score for the best players in the world under ideal conditions be a couple under Par for four rounds.

 

So of course he wants them to use a whiffle ball. It's the only conceivable way to eat his cake and have it too. Tricking up a course like that and forcing the elite players to shoot around par would require a 10,000 yard course (if they play real golf with the real ball).

 

I am happy to agree with you that a 10,000 yard course is necessary to challenge today's elite players the same as a 7,000 yard course was in 1960, or a 6,000 yard course was in 1920 (yes, before steel shafts). It shows that both humans and equipment have advanced significantly over the past century.

 

The problem with the advances is that land has become more valuable, there are a lot more people on the earth, and resources are scarce. It also takes more time to play golf now than it did a century ago - in fact in 1920 every single match in the US Amateur was played at 36 holes. Why? Because they could, and 36 was a better test of skill than luck.

 

Us roll-backers are in favor of shrinking the game so that it can be challenging on shorter golf courses, for all of the reasons above.

[AceCatKY]

As I say in all these threads, Mike Davis wants it all. He wants to use classic courses, firm them up so the ball runs 40+ yards on every tee shot, move a couple of Par 4 tees up 80 yards to make "driveable" holes, keep the Par at 70 or 71 and still have the winning score for the best players in the world under ideal conditions be a couple under Par for four rounds.

 

So of course he wants them to use a whiffle ball. It's the only conceivable way to eat his cake and have it too. Tricking up a course like that and forcing the elite players to shoot around par would require a 10,000 yard course (if they play real golf with the real ball).

 

I am happy to agree with you that a 10,000 yard course is necessary to challenge today's elite players the same as a 7,000 yard course was in 1960, or a 6,000 yard course was in 1920 (yes, before steel shafts). It shows that both humans and equipment have advanced significantly over the past century.

 

The problem with the advances is that land has become more valuable, there are a lot more people on the earth, and resources are scarce. It also takes more time to play golf now than it did a century ago - in fact in 1920 every single match in the US Amateur was played at 36 holes. Why? Because they could, and 36 was a better test of skill than luck.

 

Us roll-backers are in favor of shrinking the game so that it can be challenging on shorter golf courses, for all of the reasons above.

 

The game is still challenging on shorter courses. Too much obsession with bygone times and wanting modern golf to be the same as it was 50 years ago. The reason the game takes longer is more participation not because the course is 1000 yards longer than 50 years ago. 1000-1500 extra yardage on an 18 hole course is insignificant in increasing playing time. The land scarcity argument is not relevant either; only well-heeled courses hosting tour events are forced to expand. No one is suggesting the local muni needs to buy acreage to add 1000 yards to accommodate weekend warriors.

[15th Club]

As I say in all these threads, Mike Davis wants it all. He wants to use classic courses, firm them up so the ball runs 40+ yards on every tee shot, move a couple of Par 4 tees up 80 yards to make "driveable" holes, keep the Par at 70 or 71 and still have the winning score for the best players in the world under ideal conditions be a couple under Par for four rounds.

 

So of course he wants them to use a whiffle ball. It's the only conceivable way to eat his cake and have it too. Tricking up a course like that and forcing the elite players to shoot around par would require a 10,000 yard course (if they play real golf with the real ball).

 

I missed this post earlier. It's really nicely written. I love it. Yes, use a classic course (I nominate NGLA as our first post-rollback US Open venue), firm it up so that the ball runs 40+ yards on every tee shot, create a couple of driveable Par 4's, and make it Par 71 (18th as a 495-yard Par 4), and use whatever-spec golf ball is needed, for a 6900-yard course.

 

I'd see it as the greatest US Open of my lifetime.

[North Butte]

Now just convince 150 of the best players in the world to share your vision and your dream can come true!

 

Of course that hypothetical US Open's winner would forever have an asterisk by his name...

 

* Played with a Cayman ball for one year only.

 

P.S. It's also an open question just how much of an honor members of The National would find it to host history's first-ever USGA Whiffle Ball Open.

[15th Club]

Now just convince 150 of the best players in the world to share your vision and your dream can come true!

 

Of course that hypothetical US Open's winner would forever have an asterisk by his name...

 

* Played with a Cayman ball for one year only.

 

I didn't realize that the PGA Tour's top-150 money winners all got a vote with the USGA Executive Committee, on the conduct of the U.S. Open.

[North Butte]

So if Mike Davis decided to hold a US Open at my local Putt-Putt course, how many of the World Top 100 players do you think would play?

[15th Club]

Now just convince 150 of the best players in the world to share your vision and your dream can come true!

 

Of course that hypothetical US Open's winner would forever have an asterisk by his name...

 

* Played with a Cayman ball for one year only.

 

P.S. It's also an open question just how much of an honor members of The National would find it to host history's first-ever USGA Whiffle Ball Open.

 

The one thing that I can recite for you, in connection with most major championships of the last 50 years; who won and where was it played.

 

One thing that I cannot recite, and don't care to know; what type of golf ball did the winner use?

[Pepperturbo]

Let's be clear, only a small percentage of tour players hit the ball long. If tour management is concerned about distance, all that needs to happen is change how courses are set up. Watching golf on TV or standing in the crowded gallery watching tour players hit the ball, it's not easy to track the ball in flight. So, going on and on about watching players hit it big overstates what can be seen.

 

No, distance is not ruining the game. What's ruining the game is letting a small percentage of big hitters define course configuration, which has a more significant effect on the majority of players. Make courses tougher.

 

I like seeing tour players navigate tight, challenging courses with small greens that are difficult to hit, much less in two. Going that route will allow golf to be enjoyable for the masses for the foreseeable future.

Oh, slow play on tour is not helping slow amateurs improve their pace of play. :beach:

[15th Club]

So if Mike Davis decided to hold a US Open at my local Putt-Putt course, how many of the World Top 100 players do you think would play?

 

Phil Mickelson is so totally in on that; he already knows what shoes he will be wearing.

[BrockPSU]

I love how Brooks Koepka stated that he has not gained distance from when he was a teenager but still some people think everyone has gained distance because of technology....... I am not saying he speaks for everyone but I can say that I have not gained distance in the last 10-15 years. Forgiveness might have been increased. But there is no reason to go back now and change everything. Unless you want to remove the major wins and put * beside everyone who won in that time period because of the imaginary distance increase from technology. :swoon:

[MtlJeff]

for reference:

 

"Tiger proofing" typically refers to the action of courses adding a lot of yardage in the early 2000's mostly as a result of Tiger destroying them when he was at the peak of his ability to outhit everyone and also hit fairways

 

Here's an article from 2008 discussing it from Bleacher Report, which also references how it actually had the opposite effect and made distance training more necessary

 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/28934-us-open-tiger-proofing-of-golf-courses-has-done-just-the-opposite

[gvogel]

I love how Brooks Koepka stated that he has not gained distance from when he was a teenager but still some people think everyone has gained distance because of technology....... I am not saying he speaks for everyone but I can say that I have not gained distance in the last 10-15 years. Forgiveness might have been increased. But there is no reason to go back now and change everything. Unless you want to remove the major wins and put * beside everyone who won in that time period because of the imaginary distance increase from technology. :swoon:

 

Brooks Koepka is 28 years old. He was 13 by the time that the Pro V1 and 460cc drivers were fully implemented. Of course he can say that because by the time he was a mid-teen, he was playing with equipment comparable to today's. He has probably picked up a few yards since then, but that is not significant to him.

 

The distance "problem" was already a "problem" by 2003.

[BrockPSU]

I love how Brooks Koepka stated that he has not gained distance from when he was a teenager but still some people think everyone has gained distance because of technology....... I am not saying he speaks for everyone but I can say that I have not gained distance in the last 10-15 years. Forgiveness might have been increased. But there is no reason to go back now and change everything. Unless you want to remove the major wins and put * beside everyone who won in that time period because of the imaginary distance increase from technology. :swoon:

 

Brooks Koepka is 28 years old. He was 13 by the time that the Pro V1 and 460cc drivers were fully implemented. Of course he can say that because by the time he was a mid-teen, he was playing with equipment comparable to today's. He has probably picked up a few yards since then, but that is not significant to him.

 

The distance "problem" was already a "problem" by 2003.

 

If the distance was a "problem" it would have been fixed a year later. Not 15. That is my point.