USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[15th Club]

“The bottom line is that they will probably change the equipment because they think people are hitting too far now and possibly destroy records set by the golfing greats of the past.”

I have never, understood that complaint. But this is the first time I have ever seen it thrown at the USGA. It’s an utterly bogus allegation; but usually I see it aimed at the retired players who are now experienced in course architecture. Oh; and who no longer have (or never had) contracts with Titleist.

What records is anyone trying to preserve? I personally think that the reason that Tiger Woods has not taken the single most important record in golf — most major championships — is due to the invention of multilayer urethane balls and 460 cc drivers. Before 2001, Tiger was qualitatively better than the rest of golf.

So what records? Scoring? Distance off the tee? Nobody remembers those numbers. Nobody cares. People care about who wins, what the golf was like, and what the course was like.

 

[deadsolid...shank]

I didn’t read the report, but I don’t how it could possibly say ams haven’t gained substantial distances with the ball and clubs. I believe mostly the ball. But depending on where they roll the ball back to (I’m guessing to pre Pro V time), absolutely ams will lose a lot. There are boatloads of examples all over this forum, some even in this thread, about ams hitting the ball the same distances in their later years (50+ and up) as they did in their physical prime. They are t doing that because they’re suddenly in much better shape or magically revamped their swing. It’s the equipment.

I do think you’re 100% on point though about too many people playing too far back.

[Holy Moses]

The report says:

-From 1900-1930, elite male golfers drove the ball 160- 200 yards.

-From 1930-1990, distance increased at a slower rate. The average driving distance on the PGA Tour was 263 yards.

-From the mid 1990s to 2003, the average driving distance combined on the PGA Tour and European Tour was 286 yards.

-From 2003-2019, the average driving distance combined on the PGA Tour and European Tour was 294 yards. After essentially no increase for the first 10 years, since 2013 these distances have increased at the rate of about one yard per year.

-The driving distances of recreational golfers have also increased over the long term: today’s average drive distances for recreational men are in the range of 185-240 yards as compared to a typical range of 130- 180 yards around 1930.

-Today’s average drive distances for recreational women are in the range of 145-160 yards as compared to a typical range of 100-150 yards around 1930.

 

 

 

[tannyhoban]

Ths study cited showed a 15 yard gain from 2000 to 2015 using six courses. Interesting -2 yards from 2005 to 2018. Seems like a very small sampling.

I have no issue with folks playing from whatever tees they want. I really believe too much is made of this when course slot tee times 7-8 minutes apart.

If they decide tomorrow persimmon is the new standard I'd do it in a heartbeat. At this point to me it just doesn't matter, lol.

[gvogel]

I think that one of the nice items in the distance report was the suggestion that local committees could adopt rolled back equipment as a standard of play for certain events. That local rule could be used to continue to hold US Opens at Merion, Pebble Beach, and perhaps a few other courses that are really too short for modern equipment, and have to be totally tricked up to challenge elite golfers. Augusta National might elect to hold the Masters with such equipment, instead of playing the 13th from new tees.

On the other hand, the USGA could continue to hold the US Open at Erin Hills with modern equipment.

Rangersgoalie thinks that switching to reduced equipment would be difficult for pros for, say, one or two weeks a year. I think that the pros are so good that they could handle it fairly easily. They can adapt to difficult weather conditions; they can adapt to playing at high altitude (Mexico).

Such a local rule at least gives the USGA the ability to test how reduced distance regulations would affect elite players, say in state ams or other events. It's an idea. And it would not affect the recreational player.

[QuigleyDU]

why are these courses too short? The last us open at Marion was a brutal test.

[QuigleyDU]

Every single one of those guys has skin in the game on the course design side. They are biased because it affects their wallets.

till I see something from an unbiased party I am holding my ground. These guys can fund it if they want.

[bladehunter]

I’m not sure it does. People pay them to redesign for the name recognition, not only to lengthen. Any jabronie designer can move the tees back. As stated. This jabronie moved 4 at my home course back. And the course is worth no more because I did it. But if Tiger moved then to the same spot add another zero. I don’t think their business suffers or gains from a rollback. Or non rollback.

[Hawkeye77]

Nicklaus has been talking about this forever and pretty open about all the reasons, many of which you are dismissing without probably even appreciating them even a little bit.

Not jumping into the fray, but a blanket statement like that really ignores the history of the arguments.

[gvogel]

Brutal as in tricked up to the Nth degree.

Phil did pretty well by playing 2-wood all week.

[ThinkingPlus]

I think it might be beneficial for the pro rollback crowd to come up with a rollback percentage so that everyone can have a very good idea of what the impact to the game would be. It gets everyone on the same page. No point in trying to determine how (to many variables). Also the "more spin, smaller head" approach really won't work. Spin can be optimized out and strong 3-woods go a mile already so their isn't much deterrence there. To kick off the discussion folks should realize that dropping the COR to 0.8 would result in a drop in distance of 3.75% or about 10 - 12 yards for the male pros/elite male amateurs.

[Hawkeye77]

That seems like a good path for discussion . . . . .

[mahonie]

How about keeping everything as it is but limiting the number of times a driver can be used in a round to say 5? You could even have a local rule to implement it and you could vary it from course to course, competition to competition. Takes the distance advantage away, perhaps re-focuses the game on accuracy...you know, getting the ball in the right place rather than just as close to the hole as you can get it from the tee. Limiting the use of driver, gets the player to use it strategically where it will give most advantage on a particular hole. Just a thought.

[mokedaddy]

From 1997https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-08-04-9708040052-story.html

[Sean2]

Makes you wonder about all that technology in golf clubs. :-)

ps: I play the senior tees, if the roll back for everyone I will have to play the forward tees.

[Hawkeye77]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[farmer]

This is an interesting question. What would be the acceptable rollback?

[Holy Moses]

The percentage I keep hearing is a 10% rollback is a starting point

[Vienus]

Seeing folks at my club hitting 80 yards with driver.

so no rolling back necessary

[QuigleyDU]

I am not the only one who has thought it. Many smarter than i on the Subject have said the same thing.

[strug'-a-ling]

I probably commented on this thread before; I can't remember.

I favor the same equipment rules for everybody, and those equipment rules should reflect the skills of recreational players.

What the world's best two hundred or so players can do shouldn't even enter in the consideration.

 

Perhaps my perspective is skewed by the fact that golf is a recreational and social game that I enjoy with my friends.

It's been quite a few years since I've had any interest in pro golf at all.

[gvogel]

I played the forward tees, or even farther up, with the reduced distance Point Five ball. That ball is extremely distance reduced. I would imagine that I would still be playing senior tees.

[15th Club]

“Every single one of those guys has skin in the game on the course design side. They are biased because it affects their wallets.”

Quigley I want you to explain directly and in detail why ever-increasing distance in golf would negatively affect the “wallets” of course designers.

And before you begin, I want to say conclusively, that ever-increasing distances from equipment technology is one of the things that CREATES business for high-end designers of courses intended for elite-level play. Okay? We should not have to argue about that. Needing to lengthen, toughen, re-configure golf courses for modern elite play is a significant source of business for Nicklaus, Rees Jones, Gil Hanse, etc.

Okay with that irrefutable fact our if the way, you can now tell us how it hurts their wallets. The only way that I can figure it hurting Gil Hanse’s wallet is if the seat of a Cat wears it out while he is doing some shaping at Oakland Hills this summer.

[Hawkeye77]

Just picking the low fruit of accusations is all there was to that.

[15th Club]

I am not going to play any games of, “What % rollback do you want?” Not if that number is going to be applied equally to all golfers.

There has been a very significant increase in distance for elite players over the past 20 years. An increase that threatens obsolescence for important championship golf courses.

And there has been a mostly insignificant, and certainly harmless, increase in distance for recreational players.

So I expect the coming rollback to conform to that reality.

 

[QuigleyDU]

You don’t think it costs more to build a bigger course?

 

All things being equal. I have very little to no knowledge on what goes into building a golf course. So, I am going to relate it to something I do understand. Building a house. It cost a lot more to build a 4000 square foot house that it does a 2000 square foot house. Right?

Now let’s say that both houses can sell for the same amount or that after 2000 square your margins start being cut into and it gets to less and less profitable past that point? Which house as a builder are you going to build?? I would also suspect that like most building projects, a development group is coming to these individuals saying we want a golf course and we have X amount of dollars budgeted. We also want it to be 7200 yards. Now, if I am jack I would look at the plan and say well let’s do it for 6900 yards because that will cost me less or say I need x more to build it at that length. They may say no and find another course architect that will do what they want inside their budget.

so of course it is better for any course designer/builder to build smaller courses. Especially if they are given a budget. That just increases margin.

of course you can make a few dollars here and there on renovating houses but building houses is where the many is at.

that’s what I think. I don’t know, but what do all of those men have in common?? They build golf courses. You do find that at least interesting to look at?

I have repeatedly said if these men, the USGA want to solve this problem, hire a third party..

 

also, it is not irrefutable that distances are increasing out side of the tour. Just because you say something does not make it true. These guys are building courses for very wealthy 20 handicaps. You are ignoring who pays for golf at these courses..

 

I am all for some kind of middle ground let’s just deal with real research and real normalized numbers. That is the only way to find out. The way the did this project is inconclusive because there was no standard for gathering data.

[15th Club]

Quigley the people we are talking about are not land developers. They are contract golf course architects.

Still, I thank you for conceding More Distance = Longer Courses = More Land = More Expense.

[strug'-a-ling]

The irony is that they don't have to set up courses at more than 7000 yards to combat the length of modern equipment.

Just set up a course so there's no room to hit a 300+ yard drive except on a couple of holes or so.

Deviation from dead center is pretty substantial on a 300 yard drive from anybody. Most fairways don't have either a left field or a right field.

 

 

[Hawkeye77]

Your house building analogy is all over the place, so it really isn't making sense. Are you trying to say that Nicklaus wants to build bigger courses? Then why is he talking about rolling the ball back, etc.? The accusation you were making was aimed at his "wallet". Are bigger automatically more profitable? Are smaller automatically less? Build courses in less time guessing your schedule opens up to make room for . . . . . . building more courses. Do all big courses have the same average costs? All smaller ones? At the margins are you really gaining or losing much because a new course will be a few hundred yards longer - are those really "bigger"? What about development possibilities around the course? So many variables, so little analysis. But Nicklaus' wallet has been driving his narrative for going on 30+ years?

[QuigleyDU]

No, I am saying he wants them smaller. Because at a point the rate of return gets bad.