USGA DISTANCE INSIGHT

[bladehunter]

Watch. The second shot from the junk here. Not the tee ball. Listen. Look at the bottom of the arc. How clean he gets it. This isn’t luck. Most guys pinch this out. Or puke it up to the bunkers. It’s not magic. The ones who can control the bottom like this are different cats. All cannot do that.

 

[gvogel]

I think that the pros in that time period did what they did with the persimmon drivers that they had. Mishits were so badly punished that they had to keep the swings under control.

I remember seeing a Billy Casper video where he stated that he hit up on the ball with his driver.

[ThinkingPlus]

They would have somewhat. Course setups were a little different. Just think if they had known the ball flight laws.

[gvogel]

Knowing the ball flight laws, and intuitively knowing how to hit draws or fades, are two different things. They knew how to work the ball.

So, what would they have gained by knowing the "modern" ball flight laws? I am confused.

[84425]

I came across a quote by Bobby Jones this past week where he stated that you ought to hit up on the ball to get less backspin and have the ball fly further. These guys knew what they were doing decades ago.

Further i fully agree with what you are saying about mishits with persimmon (and the old ball i would like to add).

In my opinion that is where 90% of this whole debate stems from: with modern clubs and a modern ball your mishits are nowhere nearly as severely punished as in the past. Hence you can swing harder because you are not taking as much risk as in the past. You can swing full force knowing that unless you push it or pull it, your slice or hook will remain in the fairway or close. Not 60-70 yards left or right of the middle of the fairway. That has changed the whole game.

That has also allowed players that could hit it very long to the top level tours where they couldn’t compete when they had 2 or 3 OB balls per tournament.

The ball doesn’t get so much sidespin not because the players are better, but because the equipment (ball and clubs) is designed for length: as little backspin as possible. And sidespin is also backspin (just in a different direction).

If a ball hit with a driver or long club has more backspin, it will also curve more and thereby punish mishits and add risk/reward back to the art of driving.

[ThinkingPlus]

In general I think most folks including pros (old or new) have more success trying to swing the club the correct way to acheive a particular shot shape rather than the incorrect way. Just an opinion.

[airjammer]

Frederick jacobsen name usually comes up. Jokingly of course but “it’s like a 9 handicap that has a career round every round” Obviously, nobody on any tour is a bad at golfing their ball.

Blade was talking about tour players..to me it can be any handicap level compared to their other own handicap level. The “ball striker” type tend to be people that rather hit the range than play. Spending hours hitting balls trying to control it. Which to me is exactly what golf is supposed to be about...control your ball, control your emotions. If you can do that with every club there’s a chance you can become a professional...longer than average you can become a legend.

To me nothing bring more fear for me personally than hitting a 3wd of the deck fat. The old drivers with the old balls could make you have that same fear on tight hole. Not anymore..it takes a pretty bad strike to hit a quacker with a 460 driver.

Since this topic has been started I seen countless people claim golf is hard. Golf is easy..if a 80 year old can play golf then it can’t be too hard. It’s hard to become “good” and that is something you have determined in your mind. For myself I feel for the time I have put into practice and just thinking about golf I have significantly underachieved and I’m sure a lot of people feel the same way but it’s nobody’s fault except my own..it’s certainly isn’t because the equipment. If anyone feels they aren’t as good as they should be it comes down to arrogance. I either didn’t work on the right things or flat out don’t have the talent I think I do..nothing more nothing less.

There is a lot of arrogance coming from the usga because very few people care where the events are being held..I’m a roll backer and I could care less. None of these venues are going to be sold off as real estate because they lost their major. The vast majority of their members can still enjoy their rounds and revel in the history that was once made there. Golf likes to keep bringing up historical rounds and such. You can’t compare rounds from year to year much less any round to Johnny Miller’s 1963 round..tour players change balls and multiple clubs every year, different pin positions, different yardages..just all kinds of stupid.

I find zero drawbacks for a reduced flight ball. The range 2 minutes away from my work has changed to reduced flight balls over the years because people could easily clear the same net line that has been there for 30 plus years and let me tell you there aren’t any greek gods or goddesses hitting balls at this golf course.

[mahonie]

^^^ 100%

[84425]

Here’s a link to the Bobby Jones words (page 129-131): Bobby Jones on Golf

[farmer]

A few notes. Blade, tech cannot be removed from the game, and it makes no difference in results overall. Every single elite am, college player, pro, and a vast number of members here are playing optimized equipment. They all play essentially the same ball, a multi-layer urethane cover, with only very marginal differences in performance across the brands. I don't know what tech you want removed, but that bird has long since flown. To Hoylake, the UK rota are on about the same latitude as northern Maine. The average daily high in St.Andrews in the hottest months is around 60*. What can be done to grass at 60 and 90+ is night and day. The classic old parkland championship courses like Oak Hill, Oakland Hill, Winged Foot etc. would be destroyed if they were baked out like Hoylake or the Old Course. It's too hot, different soil, different grass in the US, apart from the PNW. I guarantee the first noise at Shinnecock after the tournament was that of sprinklers, and the eastern tip of Long Island is not a harsh climate. Does the average club or muni player with a hdcp over maybe 10 really want to play off a hard, fast fairway with a thin, tight lie going into a very fast, hard green? Bemoan the lack of skill, but it is a real consideration. BTW, back in the day, fairways, even for majors, were cut with gang mowers set at 1/2 inch. There was a huge kerfuffle in Atlanta when they were accidentally set at 5/8. Courses hosting tournaments watered, so the course (the three holes you got to see) would look nice on tv.

[smashdn]

I think you are correct in how you state it. I guess I should have said the ruling bodies have a problem with distance. A small fraction of the general public has a problem with distance as it relates to how the game is played at the highest levels of competition. How the game is now played is what is rendering the old classic "thinking man's" designs obsolete.

 

The competition is only confirmation that the strategy has changed.

[QuigleyDU]

There is no doubt there is a reason that Tiger is the best ever. It was not his length off the tee as amazing as that was for a time.

[disco111]

Here is the question that must be addressed..........................Will the USGA do absolutely nothing and allow the OEM's continued free reign to produce even more distance enhancing balls/equipment or will they somehow come up with a definitive plan to curb the distance or at least maintain the current status quo.

[smashdn]

 

But it may. Here is how. From 100 yards away from the green I think we would agree that really only the thickest, gnarliest gunch rough is going to impede a wedge shot. But there is some magical tipping point of distance where it does make a difference. Might be 120 for some folks, might be 160 for others. At some point being in the fairway matters. At some point the golfer has to weigh the risk and may elect to throttle back due to inability to keep it out of the rough. The farther you hit it, the more directionally wild (distance-wise) you can afford to be. (Not measured by degrees offline however. You go farther offline the farther you hit it when degrees offline are equal.)

 

There is a big difference between going for a green in two with a 3 wood in your hand versus a 6 iron. It may just change the strategy and it increases the value of being able to pull off those longer shots when others cannot.

But really it doesn't. Maybe just the opposite. Hitting it far, high and landing it soft is a great skill that should be rewarded certainly. But like the above if you can hit it far enough hitting it in the rough ceases to matter. A hard green only magnifies the value of distance unless you can effectively run a shot up on the green from the fairway and utilize the contours to get the ball close to the hole. Not many tour stop designs do that though do they?

A long course benefits long hitters. A shorter "shot maker's" course puts everyone in contention it seems.

 

[clevited]

I really think the current status quo has been maintained for quite some time, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't protect against any REAL technological advancement that could increase the equipment's contribution to distance. To me it really is at a stand still and it is just the average elite golfer is getting longer and longer through necessity. The short knockers are getting filtered out and or the short knockers are putting in the work to become a long guy.

[QuigleyDU]

One thing that I do agree with @15th Club is that I am not too interested in seeing tricked up courses that are akin to playing in a tunnel. Now I think there are small setup changes can be done that are almost unnoticeable to curtail bomb and gouge. But, limiting player options is not that interesting. Giving options with increasing risk reward is interesting.
I can think personally of the most fun rounds of golf that I have had and it is at courses that have lots of options. Courses that make you think about how you want to play your next shot and where your whole bag becomes part of the round. I would love to see courses that require imagination. I also like trees, but it seems the 15th is not a tree fan by the quotes he keeps putting out there. Living in the desert my whole life tree lined courses are a joy. That is besides the point.
Part of the problem is not the distance these tour pros hit it. I think it is due to the types of courses they "want" to play. If they do not get courses like firestone, TPC courses, etc they want to play, they complain. I think it is a lot like road courses in nascar.

[ThinkingPlus]

How much rollback is needed to kill bomb and gouge? 10% won't do it given the existing penalties for a mis-directed shot. There has to be a penalty. There has to be fear and doubt. Dialing back distance alone won't fix anything. It is the easy non-solution just like the groove rule.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Great point. When viewed through an analytics and evolution lens, I begin to think equipment rollbacks would be an artificial/indirect "solution". People say the problem is not how far the ball goes, it's how the game is played. That's the "problem". If so, then distance is nothing more than a scapegoat to achieve the optics that they want. But, such a strategy would fail miserably. Having less club in (even from the rough) is statistically proven to be the superior way to achieve a lower score. All else equal, bomb and gouge wouldn't go away even if DJ maxed a driver 220 yards. Nothing the RBs do can undo the evolution in the analytics of the game, and the fact that modern players/caddies/swing coaches/etc. understand it on a far higher level than those of yesteryear. I feel like that's gone unnoticed by many.

EDIT: TP, I haven't followed super closely, but I see that you posted nearly the identical thing earlier. My bad for repeating, but I do think you're 100% correct.

[disco111]

This is the one thing that folks keep stating that it only applies to the elite players. That's honestly not the case. There are plenty of single digit handicaps that can hit it long and can/will turn their local muni's into a total joke if distances are allowed to increase. I play with a few of these players and as an example, we have a par 5 at 548 yds and they are hitting driver and 7 or 8 into the green on the second shot. We have several par 4's that are just under 400 and it's driver and flip lob wedge. During the season, they can drive the green on several holes. There's no room to lengthen and even if there was, the cost would be passed on to the rest of us and in truth the fees have been raised enough where overall play has deminished. I'm sure other's could attest to the same outcome in their particular area of golfdom. One of the guys just picked up a new Cobra driver and he's hitting it 20+ yds past his normal drives, where he still was hitting either a 5 or 6 iron into that same par 5. Our local state am's qualifiers are played on muni's, with the big tourney at one of the private courses, but those qualifiers on the muni's will get hammered with more excessable distance if allowed. Granted, we all know the object of the game is the lowest score, but it's a heck of a lot eaiser hitting wedges instead of 5 irons or in some cases just a chip.

[smashdn]

What if they used all that R&D money to not make clubs that make the ball go farther but instead used it to make clubs that were more economically produced and cheaper for the consumer.

[smashdn]

Don't know. I don't think that reeling back distance alone is the answer personally. I think you also need to add spin too. I do think the answer is in the ball though. It alone won't get you back to the performance seen around 1990 but I think it would go a long way and would drastically slow the changes made to courses. (Not interested in going down the road of whether it is needed/warranted/desired. It happens.)

[clevited]

I don't mean this as a jab but I think you need to research club tech a little more. I would be willing to bet either your friend had a club from pre 460 cc days, and or he had a driver that fit him very poorly before. He might now just be realizing his potential with properly fit equipment. All you ever see anymore is equipment that better fits a person, no "real" technological advances. My driver from 2009 hits it every bit as far as any modern driver I have today. Only real reason I don't use it is that the face easily dented/flattened. I prefer the shape and look of it and wish they would remake it today with a little more durable face.

 

Edit: Nothing wrong imo with Ams getting longer. If you put the work in and get fit properly, a person deserves to have that ability and if they can take advantage of it, they should. I am a longer than average Am, but I don't have the rest of my game to take advantage of it. I also am very inconsistent off the tee. I haven't ever pursued long term lessons primarily because I don't have the money and also I no longer have the time. I still can get on a roll and do just what you describe above.

 

I would also say lengthening is not needed. Just because they learned to hit it far doesn't mean a course needs to be lengthened.

[ThinkingPlus]

Adding spin makes bomb and gouge even easier. Tweak the CG of the driver to lower the spin on tee shots and then use the extra spin to stop the ball on the green from further away in the rough.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

A secondary thing of which I've grown a bit tired in this whole thing is the notion that the old equipment was so much more difficult to control. Some are acting like if you missed it by 1/8 inch with your persimmon driver, your balata ball would end up in Mary Lou's back yard. I've played in both eras. Sure, the woods weren't as forgiving, but it wasn't as drastic as some people (mis)remember. Sorry if this, too, has already been posted.

[ThinkingPlus]

Simultaneous posting.

[davep043]

I can't find it right now, but I think I remember reading that DJ has suggested that they place the "problems" like bunkers and pinched fairways at 320 yards instead of 280, problem solved.

[smashdn]

I said I didn't think the ball alone would get us back to that type of performance level. I just said I think it is the easiest and probably the most palatable across the board.

 

Why didn't they tweak the CG of the driver from 1930ish to 1990ish to optimize that spin? With persimmon you are certainly more limited but it is possible to move it somewhat.

 

Let's line all the variables up 1990ish to 2020. What do you guys and gals think percentage-wise has contributed most to the 30+ yards average driving distance gains seen on Tour and by the vast majority of upper level ams?

 

Driver Head Size - Longer Shaft Length - Lighter Heads/Club - Grip - Height of Cut of Grass - Urethane Covers on Ball - Fitness - Trackman - Shots Gained - Solid Core/Multi Layer Ball - No grooves on driver face - Moveable Weights - Changeable Shafts (Club Fitting in general) - Graphite Shaft - COR - Tee Tech - Shoes/spikes

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Do you view distance as the "problem" or the style of play as the "problem"? If distance, then I can't disagree. If style of play (like the USGA and 15th, etc. say), then a reduction of distance will do nothing. Again, players from a generation ago did not have the information regarding the statistical advantages of hitting it as far down the hole as possible (all else equal).

[mahonie]

Most of the par 4s at my course are 320-350 yards...I suppose you could make the greens a little trickier...or just make them par 3s and call it a par 56?

[mahonie]

Ball...460cc head combo...lack of side spin allows you to swing out of your boots with no penalty.