Tour Pro Driving Distance

[Shilgy]

Narrowing fairways, when done correctly, can bring the bunkers in to play. Not that often are there bunkers on both sides of the hole equidistant from the tee. So you absolutely can narrow the fairway by pinching in opposite side of the bunker in question.

For some of us we do play the same game as the pros, just not as well of course. And part of that is the fact that they are better at every facet of the game. Which is why it boggles my mind every time I read that so many want the winning score of an event to be even par. Or that folks “want to see them suffer like we do”. The only way to make a field full of +6 and better players shot even every day-at best!- is to trick the course up. What does that prove?

Set the course up in a difficult but fair manner and let the chips fall where they may. If the winning score is -16 so what? At some point it seems to me many got jealous of the pros games rather than rejoicing and marveling at how well they play the game. They bemoan a player today hitting a drive 320 because they’ll have a wedge in. But are amazed and filled with wondrous awe because Jack drove 18 at the Old Course or hit one 340+ at a long drive event.

 

Why do so many feel this need to tear down modern athletes?

[Lark]

Jack did it when hardly anyone else could. Today those wedges in to long holes are the norm. If only a small handful of players on Tour were doing it, they would be held in awe and people wouldn't be calling for bifurcation or reducing distance.

[smashdn]

I'm quoting you only because you quoted me. I think mos tof what you said was a general lament and not directed necessarily at what I posted. I am doing the same but do want to respond directly that I am not attempting to tear down the pro's. I only think it is reasonable to think, because of their great talents, that they should be playing the game with equipment that does not mute their skills but rather better identifies those that are truly skilled.

 

I saw a video clip from an interview where Tiger was commenting on the fact that Ricky and JT were playing rounds with persimmon. He brought up the fact that he was likely the last generation that actually competed on the pro tour with players still using persimmon. He brought up that he and DL3 were in a play off when DL3 was still using persimmon driver. Tiger says something to the effect that it was fun to see those guys manage hitting persimmon. Their three woods go about like how they were hitting that driver. (Distance right there.) Tiger then went on to talk about spin and gear effect. How the gear effect from a persimmon driver impacted both spin and distance. Off the toe you got nothing distance-wise. Off the heel it was better so we learned to hit heel cuts and favor a heel shot over one off the toe. He said today's clubs you hit it off the heel it is just a bit of a pull but it doesn't come back like hitting it there with persimmon. How the ball behaves because of spin is just as important as the reduced distance.

 

I really don't care about the score. The "how" the game is played is more important to me. The skill it takes to play the game at that level is important to me. Examining that skill is important to me. All aspects of golf skill that have been minimized through tech are in my mind not a good move. I don't think greens reading books are a good idea or lend themselves to a full examination of golfing skill. The person who is a better reader of greens should have an advantage over someone who is not and the purchase of a "better book" should not nullify that advantage. Same for range finders or caddies, etc. The ability for a golfer to buy or employ a better something should not trump skill. So it isn't really about score but more so that the score indicates that the challenges that were tested have been overcome with technology and better athleticism. We can't do a thing about regulating athleticism so that is off the table in my mind.

 

I do think there is some leeway in course set up where you can make it more difficult for a field of pros. You want to speed the greens up some and grow the rough a touch that is fine. That doesn't inherently alter the course. It does affect it and from an agronomical standpoint and can be a detriment. But where I jump off that train is when we start talking about moving bunkers and pinching fairways "everywhere past 300 yards." When you start altering angles of play and continually adding distance just to sort of keep the shot values somewhat around how the hole was intended to play I think we as golfers owe it to the game to reign that in where we can. What seems easiest to me is a reduction in equipment performance to specs closer to what they were using before the great technological flourish of the 90's-00's. Golf technology was very stable from about 1940-1990 or so. The right hand tail of the bell curve was not so pronounced.

I just don't want us to have to go to extremes in set up to offer a consistent challenge every week.

 

Maybe I was off-base with my thinking regarding the desired impacts of rough and

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I agree. It's almost as if there are more very athletic players on tour now than in the 1970s, but I know that can't be the case. When it was just Nicklaus I was OK with it, because it allowed him to win a ton of tournaments without having much of a short game. But now that almost everyone can bomb it, something must be done to resurrect true competition on tour.

[Lark]

"If Jack had had a wedge, no doubt in my mind, he would have won 30 majors," says Lee Trevino, who won six -- several at Jack's expense. "I certainly would have had about three less majors; I'd maybe have gotten him only once. I mean, he was so good at everything else. I tell people all the time, 'If Jack in his prime could have played the clubs and balls these guys are playing today, he would have hit the sumbitch 400 yards.' I'm dead serious.

[storm319]

With all due respect to Mr. Trevino, this sounds like a wistful statement founded in emotion more than anything. Though many may not want to admit it, Jack's success on tour was largely a product of the time in which he competed. If Jack in his prime would have started 50 years later with the applicable equipment of the time his wins would have been scaled back, not expanded (same applies to Tiger).

Ultimately I have never really understood the obsession with era comparisons and why people cannot simply appreciate what people accomplished in their respective times and move on (seems to be happening a lot more lately with professional sports currently on hold).

[Lark]

IMO, once a sport reaches maturity, GOAT players would be GOAT players in any era. Hogan, Nicklaus, Tiger, would be as relatively successful if you switched their playing time periods. Jack won majors from 1962 through 1986. That's a lot of different periods with lots of great players. Same with Tiger from 1997 to 2019.

[Shilgy]

A lot of hyperbole in those last couple posts....how someone can believe their is less competition today because Jack could win without a good wedge game...say what?
@smashdn
we seem to agree on much but not so much on others. Having grown up with persimmon and blades I find the equipment to be different, not easier. For me, the old stuff was easier to hit straighter...but yes the modern is longer. You went off on a tangent with the caddies and range finders that seemed odd. Caddies have been a part of the game essentially forever. So why now? Why now do they supposedly give one player too much of an advantage over others? Reading greens is largely a memory game at that level. Banning the books sounds good but...pros and those pesky caddies will go to tournament sites and make their own. Or at the very least make notes about what goes where. I find it odd that you would believe the players of old just “read” every putt as if they had never played their before. Are they supposed to somehow forget that everything breaks towards Indio and read them cold?
I said nothing about moving bunkers and pinching fairways at a certain length to deter the long players. Not sure where that came from. I do believe courses can be built and maintained in such a way to make players get more creative with their play and strategy. That should be encouraged.
Last thing is your idea about equipment not changing much from 1940-1990. Were you playing in much of that era because balls in particular were much improved. And the players improved as well. Today, and I have mentioned this often, many think the players are hitting the ball further because the average is going up. And use that as a reason for change. From 1980 -1990 alone we had the same issue just with a different cast of players. 1980 had just 6 players average over 270 per drive. In 1990 it was 26. Were they building better equipment? Not really. But the old shorter players were being replaced by a squadron of longer players that also were great at other parts of the game. How is it a bad thing to have more great players? How is it possibly a good thing that Lee would say Jack won without a wedge game(per a later post).

ps like you I replied to a bit of your post and others as well. Thank you for keeping the whole conversation civil as well. Not enough of that around here.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

@Shilgy "A lot of hyperbole in those last couple posts....how someone can believe their is less competition today because Jack could win without a good wedge game...say what?"
I was being sarcastic, bro. I like that some (not you) do this: "Nicklaus was one of a handful of guys who could bomb it, now everyone can bomb it, so we should do something", without realizing that if anything is done, there will still be MANY more players who can bomb it than there used to be. If 100 guys on tour can carry it 320 now, and they roll it back 10%, there will still be 100 guys who can carry it 288 versus a handful in 1975.
It's a separate issue from the distance debate vis-a-vise courses playing the "right" way, in my mind. We will never see "only a handful" of guys who hit it deep no matter what the RBs decide to do.

[Lark]

That is assuming everyone would scale back the same. Change the equipment and some will lose more than others.

[smashdn]

@Shilgy
No problem. I appreciate the debate and the different perspectives. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here just what preference they have for where the game was, is and headed.
Regarding caddies, it is not that I am against caddies per se, I am against what caddies have become on the pro tours (both men and women). When you have to implement a rule aimed at keeping them from lining you up on a putt then the caddie is performing a task that we should be testing in the golfer. So why gripe about them now as opposed to 40 years ago? Used to be a caddie's job was to "show up, keep up and shut up." Now he has evolved into a human range finder, club picker, sounding board and sports psychologist. My opinion is that we should be examining all aspects of golf in a competition. IMO yardage estimation and strategy choices are golf skills that can separate one player from another.
I almost added in the caveat about the ball you bring up. The ball did get better during those years. I don't know all the answers regarding driving distance 1980-1990. Maybe you can add the ball in there for that as well. And I do agree that golfers are more athletic know and that too must account for some of that distance.
Just like a 100 mph fastball is a natural "awe inducing threshold" so should a 300 yard drive. A 300 yard drive is nothing to sneeze at but these guys are doing it so often it is become blase`. There is no doubt in mind that throttled back pro golf can still be good golf and can still be entertaining. It was 30 years ago, why would it not be now.
I do agree with you regarding p&b that it was not necessarily harder to hit but different. It lent itself to the game being played differently. Ball flight, for me, is much lower, meaning I cannot simply fly over dog legs nor land the ball with little roll. You almost have to choose (with the driver anyway) do I want to hit a fade that is more controllable as it will drop and roll little or do I want to hit a draw and get the added distance through run out but lose some of the control when it hits the ground? When you can hit a 320 yard cut that choice sort of goes out the window.

The bunkers and fairways narrowing past 300 yards was (I hope) and extreme answer to making course set ups deter long driving that someone in one of these many threads had advocated.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

With advanced engineering and launch monitors, etc? Unless you are giving every player the same exact clubs, I have to disagree. Bombers gonna bomb. There are more of them capable now than ever. Superior purses= superior fitness, superior technique, superior coaching, superior fitting, superior distance, superior competition.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

@smashdn  "A 300 yard drive is nothing to sneeze at but these guys are doing it so often it is become blase`. There is no doubt in mind that throttled back pro golf can still be good golf and can still be entertaining. It was 30 years ago, why would it not be now."
Because everyone who hits it 320 now would still hit it 300. It's blasé because most of them can do it now. Put another way, set your number for an awe-inspiring drive, adjust the equipment, and watch 100 players do it every week. Again, it's a different topic than distance fitting preferred courses, etc.

[Lark]

Yes because it’s the equipment that allows more aggressive swings. Some players need that more than others. When Jack played there were others that could bomb it, but none could hit it a combined as far and as straight as Jack. I don’t put much credence in the theory that better fitness has increased distance. I attribute it to the equipment.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Yeah, tons of these tour pros wouldn't be able to find the sweet spot with Nicklaus' clubs. Remember the DJ video that hilariously backfired on Nicklaus and Player when they wanted him to hit Nicklaus' driver? Or the numerous times it backfired at the clinic at Muirfield, so Nicklaus stopped doing it? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

[jons1]

 

[Lark]

Golf Digest had a number of pros hit the old equipment a few years ago. Jason Kokrak and Tony Finau, two of the Tour's longest hitters, participated. They averaged drives in the 260s. IIRC, Kokrak got one out in the 270s. They also couldn't hit it nearly as straight as they usually do. Then a little bit of time after that, at Cherry Hills, they had a number of pros hit the old driver and balata ball on the first tee to see if anyone could match when Arnie drove the green in 1960. No one came close except Rory, who came up short in the front bunker. As to the DJ swing on an old Nicklaus club, with a modern ball, he hit it 290. So comparable but not as far as Jack when he hit it, with the old ball, at the PGA driving contests.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Well, I'm convinced. Give elite athletes like Gay Brewer and Jim Colbert this modern equipment back then, and they would carry it over 300 like everyone else. It's honestly so easy now. Very few tour pros can flush it.

[storm319]

Impromptu handful of shots = DJ definitively shorter < Jack? Give DJ extended time to practice with it like he does with his current gamer and the results will be drastically better.

[jons1]

You should never hit the ball further than you can see it. How can you tell when to yell fore? It’s just common sense.

Stop this terrifying activity of bombing drives over peoples gated community condos now! The USGA must put an end to the senseless violence against golf balls and the deforestation that causes the little known red spotted stink bug, and Scottsdale residents in general, from living in peace and harmony.

[Lark]

Lol. You're a funny guy. Instead of Brewer and Colbert how about Arnie, Mike Souchak, George Bayer, Weiskopf, Johnny Miller, Tom Watson, Mike Austin, Dan Pohl, Andy Bean, Ken Venturi, ...

[Ashley Schaeffer]

All waaaay longer than anyone playing this watered down version of golf that I’m forced to watch. I think it’s boring to watch, so I watch it all the time so I can complain about it online. It’s my little way of reminding strangers (and myself) that I am a true golf fan, not some Johnny come lately.

[smashdn]

That was sort of the takeaway from the Mike Clayton persimmon video with Lucas Herbert. They could certainly do it, but it would take a bunch more effort to get those results as compared to what they can get away with with the drivers now. Long drivers will still be long. Accurate drivers will still be accurate. Long, accurate drivers will have the advantage more so than what they have now.

[golfer07840]

Didn't Jon Rahm try to hit an 8i 183 yards in the final round of the Players last year? His caddie tried to talk him out of it. Sure enough he came up woefully short and dunk it in the water.

[Lark]

He was in a bunker trying to hit a hook.

[oikos1]

Why do some still think this has any merit at all to the discussion? You're using a few moments in time to compare how modern players vs older pros hit equipment. It's quite ridiculous, and I'm quite certain if today's pros grew up playing persimmon and balata, heck I'd even say give them a year with the old equipment, they would be quite comparable to the pros of the past, maybe even better.

[Lark]

It is swinging a golf club. I don't think it would take a year to figure out how to maximize the swing. And I don't think the results would vary much. They probably would be more accurate after one or two sessions than otherwise. But the distance on their good hits wouldn't change much. Today's players hitting the old equipment is absolutely relevant to this discussion.

And I agree today's players would hit it comparable distances that the players of decades ago hit it. Just like those older players would be hitting it today's distances if they used modern equipment.

There is also this from a couple of years ago in Golf Digest:

"To find out how much farther, we went down the list of driving-distance leaders on the PGA Tour Champions this season and then looked up what some of those bigger-name players averaged off the tee during the PGA Tour season in which they turned 30. (We picked 30 because it's a nice, round number, but it also happens to be the average age of Johnson and Rory McIlroy, the PGA Tour's two longest hitters this year.) The results were eye-popping, even for the 60-year-olds on the 50-and-older circuit. ...

Kenny Perry ranks fourth on the PGA Tour Champions in 2017 at 295 yards per poke. In 1990, he had a driving-distance average of just 270.8 yards. That's not bad considering Tom Purtzer led the PGA Tour that season at 279.6 yards (for comparison, Rory McIlroy's 316.4 yards leads this season) but that equates to nearly a 9-percent increase in driving distance from the time Perry was 30 to his current average as a 57-year-old.

The increase is even bigger for Fred Couples, if we use his driving-distance average (a whopping 300.4 yards) from 2015, the last time he played enough rounds on the PGA Tour Champions to have official stats. In 1990, two years before Freddie won the Masters and ascended to No. 1 in the Official World Golf Ranking, he averaged a measly 272.6 yards on his tee shots. Of the players we looked at, Couples' 10.2-percent increase led the way. ...

What about the senior tour's dominant force, Bernhard Langer? At 60, the German checks in at 25th in distance at 280.4 yards. But that's up 7.72 percent from his 260.3 average in 1987, two years removed from the first of his two Masters titles. That's right, Langer is significantly longer now than he was 30 years ago. 

[smashdn]

There is an actual interview associated with this article somewhere. I watched the interview on facebook but can't find it now. Anyway, read this and see what you think. https://golf.com/news/tiger-woods-play-persimmon-driver/

 

[golfer07840]

That makes it even more preposterous. WTH was he thinking?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

That's very interesting. Just when I thought TW was turning into Nicklaus based on the headline, he says it goes as far as his current 3w and the gear effect makes it always come back. The video sure looks like JT and Rickie ripped it pretty well. Gives some perspective on talent versus equipment.