USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[tannyhoban]

I'm thinking somewhere in here is a business opportunity. Just haven't cracked the code yet.

[bladehunter]

What they don’t realize is that wet and long ( you can’t grow long without wet ) fairways are great for long hitters. Makes it Uber easy to hit fairways and stay.

[Bad9]

I keep reading in this and the other essentially the same threads that the ball doesn't spin enough but at the same time there are innumerable posts on Wrx about guys needing to take spin off the ball because they zip too many off the green. So pros can't spin the ball at all but guys posting on the internet spin it too much.

[davep043]

The difficulty with this is that it takes a LOT of individuals to make a difference, it cannot be regulated by any kind of Ruling Body. Advances in training, strength, clubfitting, none of that can be effectively be regulated either Equipment stuff CAN be regulated, although we may not agree on whether it should be regulated, or how it should be regulated.

[RareSight]

It’s not just the 2000 best players in world golf who believe “Skill, Fitness & Coaching” has the biggest impact on distance gains, it’s also the Golf Manufactures, the Media, Retailers, Consumers, in fact the entire Golfing Industry have stated this.

And your claim also works the other way as well as the inevitable conceit that ‘older’ athletes like to think that they were much better than the ‘current’ generation of athletes.

History proves athletes will always evolve through natural & focused advancement of greater supporting tech, knowledge, coaching, training, nutrition etc and so we should learn to embrace this aspect of golf’s evolution.

While you may regard it as “unimportant”, the reality is it is vitally important in this distance debate because “Skill, Fitness & Coaching” is where the majority of these distance gains comes from and as I highlighted, this key factor is universally agreed upon by every facet of the golfing industry and so it can’t or shouldn’t be ignored when deciding if any changes to regulate distance is to be implemented. It’s going to be an almost impossible task to just “scale all of it back” particularly the “Skill, Fitness & Coaching” aspect as you can’t stop human evolution.

[clevited]

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Agree with your general argument. Golf is a distance game, but not only distance.

If distance counted as much as the couple/few people here arguing for shorter balls along with the USGA, longer hitters should all be scratch. We all know that’s not true. Golf is multifaceted game. The USGA should know better than that, and I think they do.

Rolling back distances will simply make historical records more relevant. The possibility of anyone driving 400 yards will be “tamed”. The flip side is the already difficult game will only become more difficult for 98% of all other golfers.

I’d even argue that longer players like myself can swing even faster with less consequences and end up at similar distances without finding as many trees and hazards.

There’s no good reason for it.

[smashdn]

 

At the same time though, throughout golfing history, that non-existent percentage has carried the mail. They've started the clubs, funded the associations and ruling bodies, made the rules and created and hosted the tournaments.

 

While statistically there may be more guys and gals who tee it up 2-3 times a year in a scramble or weekend trip with the guys, they were never the intended audience for the rules really.

 

I don't mean that to come off as snooty as I am much, much closer to the latter segment than the former but the USGA and R&A deal with the golf of the former and not really the latter.

[RareSight]

Thanks for the interesting post. These 2 quotes jumped out for me about Phil’s increased distance since 2003 (post big tour ball change) being down “just” to him training to swing the club faster, and the need for distance to really dominate.

“And I've jumped up a little bit in the last few years from 2003. I'm averaging just over 300, I don't know, 303, 307, something like that. And that is equating to just training and swinging the club faster. I've always been right around 25th in distance, give or take, and I'm back to that area, I would say.” - Phil

“You can win on the PGA Tour not hitting the ball long,” Mickelson said. “You can out-putt, you can out-strike, you can have great weeks and win golf tournaments without being the longest guy, or without overpowering a golf course. But, you cannot dominate the sport without [speed]. You might be able to do it for a year or two, but you can't out-perform everyone consistently without clubhead speed, because there's no substitute for speed in this game. It allows you to put more spin on the ball. It allows you to hit the ball longer, make carries come in higher and softer into the greens. It allows you to do more with a golf ball than if you don't have speed, and the best players in the world are going to have to have speed. So, there's no substitute.” - Phil

[RareSight]

It’s a key reason why Tiger has struggled to win only 1 major against this more modern generation of players in the past decade or so.

[iceman1118]

I think this report is mildly out of touch with reality. There are a handful of professionals and amateurs attempting to be professionals. They are excellent or very good at every aspect of the game. And golf just might be the most multi-faceted game on the planet. You need to hit it somewhat long (not necessarily 300, but a pro can't hit it 230 and compete), accurate, hold greens by controlling spin, potentially work the ball a bit left or right, chip and pitch if you miss the green, and putt. Let that sink in for one second. This is why golf is so hard for 99% of the population. Many different skills are required to be decent at the game. And what is considered decent? Single digit handicap? Handicap under 5? Under 15? Go to any public course on the weekends and get ready for 5-6 hour rounds, guys drinking, music playing on carts, hackers teeing it up 3 times out of the tee box because "that one didn't count" or whatever stupid reason, guys chunking their approach shots, 3 jacks on every green, and most cards ending up with scores ranging from 95-115. The vast majority of the population has zero interest in the latest gear, which balls spins more, what their putter is made from, getting fit, or any of the other nonsense we obsess over on this site day in and day out. Most "golfers" get out a few times a year and do it to have some fun and get away for a bit or play in outings and things of that nature. They are not out practicing, trying to play more, focusing on swings, trying to dial in putting, hitting some chips in the yard or anything like that. So the powers that be think that potentially making the game harder for these guys is a good idea? I don't think so. I am in a very fortunate place in life where I have the opportunity to play 2 or 3 rounds per week plus get in a few hours of practice. Not many people I know have that luxury. And at some point I will max out with how good I can truly get. I could be there already for all I know. Most guys I play with have the latest and greatest stuff and still slice it and hook it off the planet. 60 yard approach shot and they whip out their PM grind 64 LW? Most times that bad boy is bladed 30 yards past the green.

Professional athletes, regardless of sport, have the luxury of being paid to play a game. So in turn, that rewards them with the opportunity to get as good as they possible can due to the amount of time and effort they are able to put into their craft on a daily basis. And with the advancement in technology, we now have different brands that offer different drivers, irons, wedges, putters, and shafts. They can spend hours upon hours dialing in the best gear for their swing and their game and then use it to get better. So if the finely tuned athlete can beat the field and course that weekend and win on Sunday, then hats off to him. As it has been said before, if distance was the sole variable in winning, then Cameron Champ, Bryson, Rory, Finau and every other guy who hits it over 320 would be competing against each other all weekend and the rest of the field would be fighting for the scraps that are left. It is not true in golf because of what I said earlier, this is a multi-faceted game that requires multiple skills. And those multiple skills need to be at your best if not just below it every weekend in order to compete. The guys that bang it 330 still miss fairways and greens and some sort of scrambling is required somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40% of the time, and that is for the best players in the world.

With regards to equipment, there is a reason the OEMs offer many types of clubs. SGI irons are designed to help people with launch and spin artificially. Pros don't need any artificial help so they play blades and no tech cavity backs in order to spin the ball and hold greens. Give a weekend hacker with a 22 handicap a players cavity back with a spinny tour ball and let me know how that goes. Bifurcation is a terrible idea. What comes with that? Two different sets of handicaps for everyone? One with approved tournament equipment and one without? No chance that happens.

Going to other sports is a good comparison, but use MLB as a perfect example. The ball is still wound and the bat is still wood (maple and harder and better quality these days but I digress). The biggest reason baseball players through college use aluminum bats (which are regulated now FYI) is because there would not be enough wood on the planet to have every little leaguer, high school and college player to use wood bats for the season. They would break way too many and the game would falter for it. It becomes too expensive and the majority of players can't hit a baseball without the help from aluminum.

So I say this is out of touch with reality because I have a hard time understanding who this report is actually trying to discuss. Is is the pro golfer who hits is 330 every drive but still doesn't win every weekend? Or is is the weekend hacker who is out with his buddies praying he can drive it 220 off the tee and somehow keep it in play and not go OB and maybe not lose a dozen balls over 18 holes?

Golf is fine how it is in my opinion. Have we reached peak insanity with distance, plastic balls, etc? Who the hell knows. Has a lot of skill possibly been taken out of the game? We could argue all day about that. The fact remains; get off the tee in decent shape, find the green, if not chip or pitch it relatively close, then putt it in. All of that requires skill to some degree. The game is still hard otherwise the weekend cut line on tour wouldn't be hovering around even, it would be way lower. This weekend at WM if I recall it was even. So that means of the 150 or so top players on the planet, only half of them shot even par or better. Regardless of equipment, even par still requires skill.

[jmck]

No offense, but you've got a bunch of ignorant stuff in there.

First of all, there is an entire industry dedicated to studying the golf industry. Cost of the game isn't nearly the driver of decline you think it is. There are decades and decades worth of reports and studies on this. Same with course length vs. playing time. Again, decades and decades worth of studies, piles and piles worth of data, showing longer courses are slower to play. You can be as 100% certain as you like, but you're still wrong on both counts. Funnily enough, time commitment is a stronger driver of the decline of golf than cost, so there's an argument to be made that longer courses are helping drive the decline of the game. Cost is certainly a factor though, you're not totally wrong there, which brings me to.....

Number two, I just finished going over the 2020 budgets for a bunch of different courses that run the gamut from 6300 to 7300 yards. I can personally guarantee you that maintenance costs are indeed closely tied to length, and it isn't just course maintenance that gets more expensive with course length. Here's an example your Joe Q Public analysis doesn't take into account: Guess how many more miles get put on a fleet of carts over a year at a 7300 v. 6300 yard course? 25,000, give or take. That's an extra couple grand each under cart repairs and gas or electricity, not under course maintenance--plus of course a reduction in the service life of each cart which also has a dollar value attached to it. Funnily enough, the increasing average length of courses (which doesn't seem to bother you) is one of the factors driving the increasing cost of golf (which does seem to bother you). That relationship remains true no matter from which set of tees you or anyone else personally plays on any given course.

Lastly, yes, let's look at other sports. You mention football, baseball, and hockey. Each one of them uses a standardized ball (or puck as the case may be) which has remained more or less constant over time. Each one of them is played on a field/rink whose dimensions have ALSO remained more or less constant, despite the passage of time. Perhaps those two facts are related? Hmmm. Now has better “Skill, Fitness & Coaching” and/or technology changed how football, baseball, and hockey are played? Sure. But equipment changes haven't made Fenway or Wrigley obsolete. And you don't have to be playing shortstop for the Clubs to appreciate that--there are plenty of people sitting in the stands who are capable of appreciating that. Though good on you for not caring if Oakmont or Merion becomes obsolete for high level competition, just because you won't get to play there.

In conclusion, treads like this kill me, and I hope everyone has a great day.

[gvogel]

I have been playing "executive courses" with a reduced distance ball (Point Five). The ball doesn't go nearly as far, but it does fit a short executive course. The game takes a lot less time to play. It is much easier to walk, even on a hilly course. I get to hit lots of drives and fairway woods. It might even be more fun for me than slogging along on a regular golf course.

There is nothing wrong with playing a reduced distance ball, so long as the course length is suitable for the hitting distance. And to the comment above, length of time to play is very important for today's game. Shorter courses are easier to play in less time.

[GolfChannel]

For me, the "distance report" makes the issues very clear. The actual issue is forgiveness. New technology has created a game which largely promotes the same boring style of play.

Honestly, who wants to watch that? The numbers bear out that no one really does (unless Tiger is there to save them from reality). Golf has enough of a problem competing with all the things vying for our attention these days, so putting forth a boring lifeless product isn't doing the sport any favors.

Skill, creativity, artistry, heartbreak, carnage. These are the things which MUST make their way back into the game we love. Whether that involves altering equipment or altering course setups I'm up for all possibilities.

I don't personally think distance is the issue, though it may be one of the possible solutions, either way stop waiting and just get it done.

[Chris52]

So you can’t see any advantage the long hitters have over the shorter hits.Do you actually play the game?

So the long hitters get on the a green with a 9 iron whilst the shorter hitters might be using a 5 iron?

[bladehunter]

This is exactly the issue. Nobody hates raw distance. It’s the boring straight line play. Rewind forgiveness. Putters too.

[3jacker]

All other things being equal, if Player A hits the ball 30 yards further than Player B, Player A is a more skilled golfer.

Long hitters always retain the length advantage, on all courses, even short/tight ones like Harbor Town.

[davep043]

@GolfChannel says:
"Skill, creativity, artistry, heartbreak, carnage. These are the things which MUST make their way back into the game we love. Whether that involves altering equipment or altering course setups I'm up for all possibilities."
Those facets have been and still are present for well over 99% of golfers in our own games. Perceived problems in the game played by the world's best players have very little to do with the game the rest of us play. It would be foolhardy to make any decisions that affect ALL golfers, based on perceived problems with the elite players. I think the USGA/R&A got things right in this regard, they have no plans to "roll back" distances through equipment regulation. And I have no problem with efforts to minimize and equipment-related distance gains in the future.

[iceman1118]

That's a stupid ass comment. Of course I play the game and of course there is a benefit to hitting it longer. The overall point of my post which I take it you missed is that skill is still required to post a good score after 18 holes. Distance helps but it is not the deciding factor of what your score after 18 is.

[GolfChannel]

First, I am not against the idea. I am however against your use of examples to sell it. None of those sports have anything in common with golf which is a purely individual sport. Even tennis involves two people competing against one another with one shared piece of equipment, the ball, which is why it is uniform to prevent an unfair advantage.

The only sport I can think of which is similar to golf in terms of the ball as an individual piece of equipment is bowling and they are going through a similar issue thanks to their own governing bodies doing a horrendous job of allowing skill to be taken out of the game.

There can be common parameters made for the ball which allows manufacturers to double dip with new equipment. I don't see why anyone is whining as most of this isn't going to affect us in anyway. Almost every major sport in the world has bifurcation of some kind.

[GolfChannel]

You think a course won't largely roll back for cost savings? Given the current financial state of many golf courses and private clubs I imagine they would jump at the chance to hold onto more money for the sake of some tee boxes.

[woldy]

Can someone enlighten me as to what happened in 2016? From figure 3, the USGA report claims "stability through regulation" from 2004 through 2016, but they didn't bother to overlay any rule change as is done with previous years. They're framing this as if they had done something to limit distance and then let it expire, but I can't think of what rule might have changed leading to the slight distance uptick from 2016 to 2019.

[GolfChannel]

 

The rollback won't affect any of us. Personally, anyone complaining over a loss of 5-yards for the sake of getting the soul of the game back doesn't deserve to be able to golf.

Many who I see responding against the possible changes, or even the fact that there are any issues at all in the modern game, are those responding based on their general dislike and low opinion of the USGA. The USGA should be lambasted on this issue, they let the issue happen. I hope somewhere Frank Thomas is having the worst day of his life. However, they are far from the only culpable party in this discussion (sup manufacturers, PGA Tour, and others).

Regardless, the report is right. The USGA might be the wrong messenger, but it doesn't change the point that they identified some of the right problems.

[clevited]

Just a guess, but could it be from a fresh influx of longer than usual players? Tway, Hagy, Champ, just to name a few. I don't think it has much if anything to do with recent technology. Could also have something to do with Nike quitting club making.

[jvincent]

The most recent update to the distance tests for conforming balls was introduced in 2011. The COR limit was introduced in 2006 IIRC.

So, it took from 2011 to 2016 for manufacturers and players to figure out how to optimize equipment and training to blow past the testing conditions that the USGA set in 2011.

I posted earlier that the total distance test for balls assumes a CHS of 120mph, ballspeed of 170 mph, spin at 2500 rpm. With all the Trackman analysis of the last few years everyone knows that you can do a lot better than that. Even better if you swing faster.

Today's high speed, low spin players have rendered the total distance test completely ineffective and the balls are designed to exploit that fact.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Let’s not get too heated over semantics.

The game is not easier for most amateurs with approaches in the 150-200 yard range. Slight, but not night and day? The bottom line is people who hit shorter usually play better at other aspects of the game.

Not many of us can take advantage of an extra 10-30 yards, anyway.

[Dpavs]

What these reports clearly show is that the data is not as important as the ability to understand what it is really indicative of and the wisdom to know how to use the information provided.

[farmer]

JMCK, it is disingenuous to think that the cost of cart maintenance or replacement is not not factored into the cost of cart rental. Whatever costs it takes to maintain a golf course is also factored into the cost of membership or green fees. Cost is a factor in how many people play and how often.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

This has to be the most politely worded commentary upon the USGA. Cheers!

[davep043]

I also wondered if it could have been in part due to acceptance of the Strokes Gained principles, closer to the hole is (almost always) better. Every Shot Counts was released in 2014, perhaps more players realized the advantage of greater distance off the tee, and decided to hit driver more often.