Tour Pro Driving Distance

[storm319]

The PGA Tour also saw huge increases in sponsorship revenue (and therefore weekly purses which contributed to increases in player motivation) not to mention the advancements in launch monitor technology (swing optimization) that occurred during that same time. Let’s also not kid ourselves thinking that an emphasis on player fitness was the norm prior to the advent of Tiger Woods (not to mention the recent focus on golf specific and speed centric training that did not exist years ago).

There were several factors beyond advancements in equipment during that time frame that contributed to the mean distance gains at the highest level to the point that it is impossible to isolate any single variable’s impact. Equipment improvements have definitely had an influence, just not likely as much as some people would like to believe.

[Lark]

Agree to disagree.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I’m hitting longer now than in my 20s with my new and old equipment.

My point being, that anecdote isn’t evidence.

[jons1]

 

Clearly I wrote hickory shafts. You couldn't muscle up on your swing AT ALL and produce any kind of results. If you take your time and read what was written, it's sound.

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Clearly, but no one really used hickory shafts after the 1930s as steel was introduced in 1925?

Hickory shafts for golf would certainly make for entertaining rounds Lol.

[klebs01]

Doesn't seem likely. Bobby Jones was about 113 mph club head speed and the 1957 players (not sure who) were about 115 mph from the recent distance report. They were still putting a hard hit on the ball.

[clevited]

Just wanted to add, I have a laminated driver, and in my garage sim, 300 yards was pretty darn easy. I could get it up in the air with low spin because of how I swing. Also, over 170 bs pretty darn easy. I have a second persimmon, actual persimmon. That thing is junk. Can't hit it over 200 hardly. Why? The shaft is way too wimpy, the head is way too light, overall club weight is way too light. My point is, not all persimmon were created equal. The one I can hit 300 is heavy and the flex is just enough for my tempo. Both are short, 43.5 or so inches.

Jack and the like didn't have launch monitors but you can bet they didn't just play whatever was lying around. They no doubt tested them and visually determined if it suited them.

There is a video of long drive guys hitting old wooden drivers, even hickory. Most couldn't hit them terribly far. You give those guys time with them and ability to tweak weight, feel, loft and steel shaft flex, they will bomb them.

There is a video of Kyle Berkshire playing golf and hitting a persimmon off the tee well over 300, on target with a nice draw. If you practice with these clubs and find one that suits you, you can hit them a long ways.

 

Don't even get me started on the older ball. The same initial ball speed regs have been around forever and every manufacturer wants to hit that limit otherwise performance isn't as good. It is tested at a speed most all tour players didn't even come close to swinging at back in the day, including Jack.

Did the old wound ball spin more? Absolutely, but not that much more necessarily. Again, it depends on how the club you are swinging suits your swing.

I don't like the "tests" of old balls vs new but if you watch some of them, they can be interesting and at least somewhat educational. Mr. Shiels tested pro 90, spin on average was almost identical off his driver vs a prov1. TXG tested the same ball and spin was very high for Matt. Matt as far as I can tell hits almost down on the ball, while Rick seems to hit up. What I am trying to say, is that I am almost positive the ball isn't nearly as hige of a difference as people think. I mean, look at some players driving stats as they transitioned to the new ball back around 2000. They didn't all jump up 30 yards, not even close.

The biggest jumps in distance on tour are from 1) COR change from wood and steel clubs to modern COR, 2) The current understanding of ideal launch conditions combined with club fitting practices. 3) More speed freaks are coming up through the ranks on tour that also have great all around games. Tour money today attracts more and more talent vs yesteryear. Less money, less access to the game, less leisure time to practice it. Just like the NBA or MLB attracts the absolute best talent from all over the world because of the money and prestige, so does the money and prestige of the current pga tour.

[clevited]

Sorry, got a bit rambly in that last post. Can't help it sometimes.

[smashdn]

How do you rectify that against the fact that guys on the Champions Tour are longer than they were out of college with the old equipment.

For instance, I have seen some pics of Kenny Perry posted from his college golf days and early tour days. He was fit and he was getting after it with a big reverse c finish a la Johnny Miller. But yet he is built like he is today and longer than he was when he first came on tour and longer than the first few years of metal woods. It doesn't make sense to me from the athleticism standpoint.

 

I haven't looked at the numbers but I bet Fred Couples is a similar story. He has fought a bad back and has a noticeably smoother and slower swing now as compared to his first years on tour.

[storm319]

I don't think anyone is saying that equipment has not been an influence in distance increases in the past, just that equipment has not been the only factor and that some people exaggerate the influence that specific equipment paradigms have had mostly based on emotionally subjective opinion. Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however many people take offense when that opinion has the potential to be forced upon the entire world of golf via a regulatory change when many share the preference for the rules of golf as they exist today.

Basically, there really isn't enough reliable data to support the narrative that distance increases since the USGA took action with equipment limitations around the turn of the century will require drastic increase in course length in the future. With exception to the maximum club head size, the USGA took the appropriate action with regard to limiting the impact of equipment on the game during that time. If you believe that there are problems with the current golf ball regulations, then your issue is with pre-1980 USGA as everything meaningful to the golf ball had already been limited prior to then (the reality is that the major OEMs were well under the ball velocity and ODS limits that they set at the time and just happened to show large improvements in the 90's which was bound to be inevitable).

In terms of past era players hitting the ball further at older ages, money and competition are fairly big motivators. Keep in mind that many players from that era did not make the kind of money that the top players are making today and therefore continue on the Champions Tour because it is still very lucrative for them. Th reality is that a greater emphasis is placed on distance today because a) modern course conditions invite it, b) statistics show a strong correlation between increased distance and lower scores, and c) heightened competition requiring longer distance in order to compete vs the past. Now you could argue whether or not equipment or money is the greater influence here, but I am sure that if PGA Tour purses dropped to pre-1990 levels that we would see a dilution of competition and as a result a drop in metrics meaningful to scoring including driving distance over the next couple of decades.

[Lark]

It is understandable that people get passionate in their opinions. And each generation wants to believe theirs was the best. The younger generation wants to believe that today's players are more athletic and better than prior generations. But as far as the Tour goes, the correlations of equipment technology advances and distance increases is too strong to believe that any other factor is substantial in increasing distance. The data, the evidence, the tests, the Champions Tour comparisons- all point to the predominant cause of distance increases on Tour being the equipment. That said, that does not mean there should be a rollback for everyone because 0.01% of players are greatly affected, while everyone else is only slightly affected. I'm not for a general rollback, but I would be open to bifurcation.

[scores]

To maintain a golf course that is 7500 yards plus - its expensive. You need Grass seed, Fertilizer,water, fuel and Help. Why is golf expensive? Its a double edge sword high powered equipment in players bags is going to destroy a 6800 yard course. now you have to upgrade your Equipment to keep up until people just say the heck with it. I have a buddy that buys nothing but thrift store equipment or facebook market place stuff and he shoots in the 70's hit 275 with a 12 year old driver. he is in his fifties and loves to work out. Choose your poison.

 

[OrangeGravy]

I don't think money motivation can alter an old guy's physical ability to hit the ball further than when he was in his prime.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Honestly, why the need for 7500 yard courses?

When all the pros are breaking 54 every round, then lengthen them. Until then, no need.

 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Smoother and visually slower doesn’t mean slower at impact.

[Lark]

Some fans of Tour golf think the way they play now, bombing it over and through any need for strategic play, turning most all par 4s into wedge approaches and most par 5s into long par 4s, having to trick up greens or rely on strong winds or massive rough to give any kind of challenge, is not as interesting as the game was played before the equipment exploded distance. Seeing almost all scores in the 60s all over the top 10+ of the leaderboard at the 7600 yard Medina BMW last year- yawn. It’s like baseball- the stats driven play and probable change to the ball has made MLB games boring. All HRs or strikeouts or walks. The game was more fun to watch before.

[smashdn]

But I think my point that you can't lay the increases to increased athleticism remains valid.

 

You want to use Tiger as an example I can get on board. When he first came on tour he was thin. He clearly put on a more athletic build over the years. But even he has thinned down and is losing driving distance as he ages.

 

One of golf's great charms is that you don't have to be the biggest guy, with the longest drives or most powerful game to win and not only win but be excellent or even dominate the tour. I am not sure that is possible now. Can a player who drives it 280 do that now?

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

I’m not personally offended in seeing many scores in the 60s. That will happen no matter what we do. Better players=better scores.

All this business about “playing strategies” is BS. Even the better seniors I play rounds with hit driver to fairway then wood to green. There’s a bunker in the way they make a quick choice to lay up or hit over it. 2 second decision while reaching in their bag. What “strategy” are you talking about?

If they hit fairway then green, it doesn’t matter if they use driver/wedge versus driver/3W. It’s quite simple, really. Better players=better scores.

[smashdn]

That's a good summation of how I feel about it.

[Lark]

I think "better players" is a stretch of an assumption. It is the equipment that has made it easier to shoot lower scores for the pros. I would surmise that if you took the same exact players on the same exact course, but gave them the same equipment as used in the 1980s, you won't have near as many scores in the 60s as there was last year.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

If it’s really equipment, I would think average handicap would sit around 10 rather than 15? It’s even higher than 15 if you really surveyed scores properly.

The average player can barely break 100, even now.

I doubt equipment made that huge a difference? I agree that equipment is more consistent comparing club to club, but it doesn’t account for 100% of the longer average tour distances.

Honestly, I’d give it 20% to equipment and 80% to just better playing on average.

[gvogel]

Modern equipment has allowed the modern golfer to be sloppier with his/her driver swing. But modern equipment has not made pitching, chipping and putting an easier. Good putters have great distance control with their long putts. No equipment can substitute for years of practice, experience and feel for that part of the game. Hence, handicaps do not change much.

[Lark]

I'm referring to the effect on Tour pros, not the general public. You can't compare handicaps to 30 years ago. Back then pretty much only country club members kept handicaps. With easier technology to list scores now, many more people keep them.

The equipment is probably 95%+ the reason for the distance increases. For all the reasons I mentioned above, it is the clearest and most sensible conclusion.

[clevited]

I think people forget how important getting fit is. You can talk modern equipment all you want as being the sole reason for the distances today, but it isn't just that. To illustrate my example, take a baseball player throwing a ball from the outfield to 2nd base. A guy with an incredibly strong arm can get it there quickly and accurately by throwing it low and hard. A guy with a weaker arm can get it there by throwing it higher but likely less accurately as any wind or side spin will effect it more. The same idea is true in golf. The faster you swing, you can keep it low and be more accurate without sacrificing much distance, at least as far as it helps you. The slower guys can launch it higher and still bomb it. The draw back is, any side spin will make it go more offline, as well as any wind effecting it.

 

A guy like Boom Boom for example, no doubt gained some from tech, but he also undoubtedly gained a TON from just launch condition changing as he has aged. He is still pretty darn quick, especially if you compare his average driving distance to those on the PGA tour. I tried to find some info, or an interview with him to see if there is any documentation of what he did to gain as much average distance as he has but if I were to guess, I would say its 70/30 spit regarding fitting/launch work and tech respectively.

Just to give an example. I can hit and have almost identical ball speed on 2 consecutive drives but due to my club delivery alone, I can carry one shot 40 yards further than the other. 40 yards and I am not exaggerating!

Again, I am not saying the tech isn't a huge deal, its just not the only thing. I really do feel that club fitting, improving your launch numbers and even just knowing your swing speed and working on improving that has a larger impact than the modern ball and driver do for a professional like Freddy.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Agree. Fitting has improved our games possibly just as much as the equipment itself.

Scoring from inside 100 yards is not as critical to overall score as driving and longer approaches.

If it’s 95%, then it scales down to the average player. We should all be playing better and we’re not.

[disco111]

If it’s 95%, then it scales down to the average player. We should all be playing better and we’re not.

Distance and scoring lower is not a mutual pact for the average player(s). The whole distance hoopla revolves around the pro's and the semi elite AM's.

[Lark]

Agree. This is geometric, not linear. More relative distance will be gained the higher the swing speed.

[Shilgy]

In all fairness probably not. 280 would be about 10% behind the leader in distance. What 240-250 hitter ever dominated golf in persimmon days. The best players have always been amongst the longer players.

[elwhippy]

Bobby Locke. Gary Player, Peter Thomson, Lee Trevino. Hale Irwin, Larry Nelson, Bernhard Langer, Jim Furyk. Not a bomber among them but several hundred trophies and plenty of majors.....

[Shilgy]

That is not what I wrote but Lee averaged 259 in 1980 at age 40. Well within 10% of the leader. Irwin would qualify on length but who would call him dominant on tour? Which is what I asked. Which among your group is really a titan of the game? We do have have stats to say for sure but as I recall Player was not really short off the tee. And is among the best but dominant in the vein of Snead Hogan Jack Tiger?