Tour Pro Driving Distance

[gvogel]

I really preferred the play on Thursday to the play on Friday.  These are the best players in the world, and I have no problem seeing a bunch of them break par.

 

When the greens get too hard, too severe, luck enters into the equation too often.  I don't think that there is anything wrong with -10 as a winning score at a major.  The PGA Championship and the Masters seem to get that right.  The US Open will always be important due to the quality of the courses, and the fact that it is the national championship.

[Lark]

1 hour ago, gvogel said:

I really preferred the play on Thursday to the play on Friday.  These are the best players in the world, and I have no problem seeing a bunch of them break par.

 

When the greens get too hard, too severe, luck enters into the equation too often.  I don't think that there is anything wrong with -10 as a winning score at a major.  The PGA Championship and the Masters seem to get that right.  The US Open will always be important due to the quality of the courses, and the fact that it is the national championship.

The problem with low scores is because they are the result of modern equipment removing the challenge that was designed into the course. 

[Shilgy]

9 minutes ago, Lark said:

The problem with low scores is because they are the result of modern equipment removing the challenge that was designed into the course. 

A person could argue that it was not a very good design then. A challenge designed into a course that is only for a certain length of player? Was it designed to challenge the guy at 260 off the tee? 280? 300? So it was easier to be a bit shorter or longer? Was it only the tee shots that were challenged? Was it only one angle of approach that was a challenge? How is the challenge obsolete if in the past it was a great test for both a Snead and a Runyan....a Nicklaus and a Peete.....a Norman and a Pavin.
The agronomy is better today. Does that make it easier or more difficult? Both I would think. A good design creates angles. And angles make the length issue lessen. Perhaps not removed but certainly less of an issue. A series of long straight holes, think Firestone as I recall, may be harmed by modern equipment. But a good design is not.

[Titleist99]

Everyone have their own opinion as to what a good golf course should be. People forget the object of the game. Golf is a test, a different test at each venue.....but what remains the same is that everyone plays the same golf course and the player with the lowest score at the end will be crowned the champion every time...... and in all the professional tournament a trophy an a big fat check will be given to the winner....IMO

[tannyhoban]

43 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

A person could argue that it was not a very good design then. A challenge designed into a course that is only for a certain length of player? Was it designed to challenge the guy at 260 off the tee? 280? 300? So it was easier to be a bit shorter or longer? Was it only the tee shots that were challenged? Was it only one angle of approach that was a challenge? How is the challenge obsolete if in the past it was a great test for both a Snead and a Runyan....a Nicklaus and a Peete.....a Norman and a Pavin.
The agronomy is better today. Does that make it easier or more difficult? Both I would think. A good design creates angles. And angles make the length issue lessen. Perhaps not removed but certainly less of an issue. A series of long straight holes, think Firestone as I recall, may be harmed by modern equipment. But a good design is not.

I don't disagree but Firestone is a poor example. More slope and angles than TV shows. Look at this year's Sr. scores. Firestone has added very little length over the years. 

[mahonie]

34 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Everyone have their own opinion as to what a good golf course should be. People forget the object of the game. Golf is a test, a different test at each venue.....but what remains the same is that everyone plays the same golf course and the player with the lowest score at the end will be crowned the champion every time...... and in all the professional tournament a trophy an a big fat check will be given to the winner....IMO

 

A good golf course should identify the best golfer and that means testing every aspect of golf: driving, fairway woods, long irons, mid-irons, short game, putting, course management. If all courses tested every aspect of golf, you would only have 3 or 4 multiple winners every season and they would be the best all-round golfers.

 

TPC-type courses only test driver, wedge and putter and therefore by definition they are not good golf courses and designed specifically to suit the bomb and gouge generation which is where the PGA Tour sees that it can generate the most money...that is all it is interested in.

[Titleist99]

3 hours ago, gvogel said:

I really preferred the play on Thursday to the play on Friday.  These are the best players in the world, and I have no problem seeing a bunch of them break par.

 

When the greens get too hard, too severe, luck enters into the equation too often.  I don't think that there is anything wrong with -10 as a winning score at a major.  The PGA Championship and the Masters seem to get that right.  The US Open will always be important due to the quality of the courses, and the fact that it is the national championship.

Don't worry next week they'll be right back at scores of -20 for the tourney.....LOL!

[Titleist99]

30 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

A good golf course should identify the best golfer and that means testing every aspect of golf: driving, fairway woods, long irons, mid-irons, short game, putting, course management. If all courses tested every aspect of golf, you would only have 3 or 4 multiple winners every season and they would be the best all-round golfers.

 

TPC-type courses only test driver, wedge and putter and therefore by definition they are not good golf courses and designed specifically to suit the bomb and gouge generation which is where the PGA Tour sees that it can generate the most money...that is all it is interested in.

Professional golf has always been about the money. At one time pros wasn't even allowed in the clubhouse. All television sports is specifically designed to make money and none care about the integrity of the game regardless of what they say, public entertainment is a lucritive business.....IMO

[gvogel]

57 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

A good golf course should identify the best golfer and that means testing every aspect of golf: driving, fairway woods, long irons, mid-irons, short game, putting, course management. If all courses tested every aspect of golf, you would only have 3 or 4 multiple winners every season and they would be the best all-round golfers.

 

TPC-type courses only test driver, wedge and putter and therefore by definition they are not good golf courses and designed specifically to suit the bomb and gouge generation which is where the PGA Tour sees that it can generate the most money...that is all it is interested in.

Back when the Open Championship was played at St Andrews, the winners of the first two averaged 89 and 88.  In 1879, Jamie Anderson averaged 80 for his two rounds, but then the next 3 winners on the old course averaged 85.  Now, I am guessing that there were a whole lot of holes that we would describe as par 4's that were unreachable in two shots from 1873 to 1900.

 

So, what if someone laid out a course that had many, many "par 4" holes that were unreachable by all but the very longest modern players?  So, to be comparable, lets say that course had 10 "par 4's" of 525 each, 4 "par 3's" of 300, and 4 "par 5's" of 650 each.  Unreasonable?  that would be a 9,050 yard golf course for today's modern equipment and modern golfers, and would be comparable to what the pros played at The Old Course from 1873 to 1900.

 

I hope that puts into perspective that even Winged Foot is a pitch and putt course for this year's contestants.

[Lark]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

A person could argue that it was not a very good design then. A challenge designed into a course that is only for a certain length of player? Was it designed to challenge the guy at 260 off the tee? 280? 300? So it was easier to be a bit shorter or longer? Was it only the tee shots that were challenged? Was it only one angle of approach that was a challenge? How is the challenge obsolete if in the past it was a great test for both a Snead and a Runyan....a Nicklaus and a Peete.....a Norman and a Pavin.
The agronomy is better today. Does that make it easier or more difficult? Both I would think. A good design creates angles. And angles make the length issue lessen. Perhaps not removed but certainly less of an issue. A series of long straight holes, think Firestone as I recall, may be harmed by modern equipment. But a good design is not.

Today they hit it past the locations that matter for angles. They hit past where it matters if you are in the rough or not. Holes with hazards and preferred landing spots from 250-300 yards don’t matter anymore, unless they tighten the fairways to 20 yards, grow rough above your ankles, and make greens like concrete, which is boring golf. 

[mahonie]

27 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Back when the Open Championship was played at St Andrews, the winners of the first two averaged 89 and 88.  In 1879, Jamie Anderson averaged 80 for his two rounds, but then the next 3 winners on the old course averaged 85.  Now, I am guessing that there were a whole lot of holes that we would describe as par 4's that were unreachable in two shots from 1873 to 1900.

 

So, what if someone laid out a course that had many, many "par 4" holes that were unreachable by all but the very longest modern players?  So, to be comparable, lets say that course had 10 "par 4's" of 525 each, 4 "par 3's" of 300, and 4 "par 5's" of 650 each.  Unreasonable?  that would be a 9,050 yard golf course for today's modern equipment and modern golfers, and would be comparable to what the pros played at The Old Course from 1873 to 1900.

 

I hope that puts into perspective that even Winged Foot is a pitch and putt course for this year's contestants.

 

With good course design you can still test driving without having to make every course monster long. Paul McGinlay did a great bit of analysis between BCD and JT last night on Sky Golf. JT was missing the fairway by 40 yards and was having to chip out, BCD was only just missing but still had a shot. When JT won the St Jude a few weeks back, he was missing fairways by even more than 40 yards and still had reasonable shots into the greens.

 

When distance and accuracy are tested together, then you have good course design. If you can hit it 320 yards in the fairway, fair play, you should have a shot at birdie. If you’re missing fairways you shouldn’t be in with a shout of winning any week. But this happens every week on the PGA Tour. The problem is not necessarily the equipment or the players, it’s the rubbish courses they’re playing. 

[Shilgy]

51 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Back when the Open Championship was played at St Andrews, the winners of the first two averaged 89 and 88.  In 1879, Jamie Anderson averaged 80 for his two rounds, but then the next 3 winners on the old course averaged 85.  Now, I am guessing that there were a whole lot of holes that we would describe as par 4's that were unreachable in two shots from 1873 to 1900.

 

So, what if someone laid out a course that had many, many "par 4" holes that were unreachable by all but the very longest modern players?  So, to be comparable, lets say that course had 10 "par 4's" of 525 each, 4 "par 3's" of 300, and 4 "par 5's" of 650 each.  Unreasonable?  that would be a 9,050 yard golf course for today's modern equipment and modern golfers, and would be comparable to what the pros played at The Old Course from 1873 to 1900.

 

I hope that puts into perspective that even Winged Foot is a pitch and putt course for this year's contestants.

Maybe they just had bad short games?? ?

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, mahonie said:

 

A good golf course should identify the best golfer and that means testing every aspect of golf: driving, fairway woods, long irons, mid-irons, short game, putting, course management. If all courses tested every aspect of golf, you would only have 3 or 4 multiple winners every season and they would be the best all-round golfers.

 

TPC-type courses only test driver, wedge and putter and therefore by definition they are not good golf courses and designed specifically to suit the bomb and gouge generation which is where the PGA Tour sees that it can generate the most money...that is all it is interested in.

I’ll disagree with most of that. The “should test” part is fine. A good course should test those different elements. But even the TPC courses test the different elements, just not in the way you and others are thinking. Why does a long iron approach need to be on a par 4? Why not a difficult second like 15 at TPC Scottsdale? Want a good test on for a three wood or short driver? 17 at the same course fits the bill nicely. If you want to birdie or even eagle that hole you have water left and a tough little wedge if you miss the green right.

Point being the challenges have maybe changed a bit from years past. If I recall correctly Jones was longer with hickory, and the ball of his era, than were the players with steel and balata. So change is a constant in the game of golf, as it is with most sports.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of a good test would have just 3-4 winners all year if they played that type of course all year. Most of the great champions had about the same win percentage of majors as regular events. And even the majors have about as many fluke winners as regular events. How else to explain Yang, North, Moody, Cody, Fleck, Hamilton and company? On the flip side at a difficult Memorial DJ was lost. He was having a challenge breaking 80 and then went on a tear. 
The game of golf is fickle...and hard. No one masters the game on a weekly or even daily basis.

[mahonie]

48 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I’ll disagree with most of that. The “should test” part is fine. A good course should test those different elements. But even the TPC courses test the different elements, just not in the way you and others are thinking. Why does a long iron approach need to be on a par 4? Why not a difficult second like 15 at TPC Scottsdale? Want a good test on for a three wood or short driver? 17 at the same course fits the bill nicely. If you want to birdie or even eagle that hole you have water left and a tough little wedge if you miss the green right.

Point being the challenges have maybe changed a bit from years past. If I recall correctly Jones was longer with hickory, and the ball of his era, than were the players with steel and balata. So change is a constant in the game of golf, as it is with most sports.

I also have to disagree with your assessment of a good test would have just 3-4 winners all year if they played that type of course all year. Most of the great champions had about the same win percentage of majors as regular events. And even the majors have about as many fluke winners as regular events. How else to explain Yang, North, Moody, Cody, Fleck, Hamilton and company? On the flip side at a difficult Memorial DJ was lost. He was having a challenge breaking 80 and then went on a tear. 
The game of golf is fickle...and hard. No one masters the game on a weekly or even daily basis.

 

I think the conclusion is that there have always been a lot of so-so courses in rotation and that some of the TPC courses have some good holes. Consistent test? I don’t think so.

 

It’s also why I have realised that the only golf worth watching is the Open. The Masters used to be a tournament that I enjoyed...it was said that the only problem with Augusta was that it didn’t have a bad hole to break the concentration. Modern equipment has destroyed the strategic nature of Augusta and that is a real loss.

[Shilgy]

18 minutes ago, mahonie said:

 

I think the conclusion is that there have always been a lot of so-so courses in rotation and that some of the TPC courses have some good holes. Consistent test? I don’t think so.

 

It’s also why I have realised that the only golf worth watching is the Open. The Masters used to be a tournament that I enjoyed...it was said that the only problem with Augusta was that it didn’t have a bad hole to break the concentration. Modern equipment has destroyed the strategic nature of Augusta and that is a real loss.

Not sure what you mean by consistent test? Should every hole be a tough examination where par is the reward? So a course filled with par 3’s like #4 at Augusta and par 4’s like #5? Or is a better test one that can make the player be prepared for highs and lows? Some relatively easy holes (which put their own kind of pressure on the player because they know they need to birdie to keep pace with the field) followed by the more difficult traditional test.  
Just makes me wonder why a difficult par is a great test but being able to make birdie on a slightly easier hole is not.

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, gvogel said:

Back when the Open Championship was played at St Andrews, the winners of the first two averaged 89 and 88.  In 1879, Jamie Anderson averaged 80 for his two rounds, but then the next 3 winners on the old course averaged 85.  Now, I am guessing that there were a whole lot of holes that we would describe as par 4's that were unreachable in two shots from 1873 to 1900.

 

So, what if someone laid out a course that had many, many "par 4" holes that were unreachable by all but the very longest modern players?  So, to be comparable, lets say that course had 10 "par 4's" of 525 each, 4 "par 3's" of 300, and 4 "par 5's" of 650 each.  Unreasonable?  that would be a 9,050 yard golf course for today's modern equipment and modern golfers, and would be comparable to what the pros played at The Old Course from 1873 to 1900.

 

I hope that puts into perspective that even Winged Foot is a pitch and putt course for this year's contestants.

Golf balls evolved, golf clubs evolved, courses evolved and players evolved.....hopefully the trend will continue.

[tannyhoban]

3 hours ago, gvogel said:

Back when the Open Championship was played at St Andrews, the winners of the first two averaged 89 and 88.  In 1879, Jamie Anderson averaged 80 for his two rounds, but then the next 3 winners on the old course averaged 85.  Now, I am guessing that there were a whole lot of holes that we would describe as par 4's that were unreachable in two shots from 1873 to 1900.

 

So, what if someone laid out a course that had many, many "par 4" holes that were unreachable by all but the very longest modern players?  So, to be comparable, lets say that course had 10 "par 4's" of 525 each, 4 "par 3's" of 300, and 4 "par 5's" of 650 each.  Unreasonable?  that would be a 9,050 yard golf course for today's modern equipment and modern golfers, and would be comparable to what the pros played at The Old Course from 1873 to 1900.

 

I hope that puts into perspective that even Winged Foot is a pitch and putt course for this year's contestants.

That doesn't make any sense. Golf was in it's infancy played on farmland with sheep mowing the grass.

[mahonie]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Not sure what you mean by consistent test? Should every hole be a tough examination where par is the reward? So a course filled with par 3’s like #4 at Augusta and par 4’s like #5? Or is a better test one that can make the player be prepared for highs and lows? Some relatively easy holes (which put their own kind of pressure on the player because they know they need to birdie to keep pace with the field) followed by the more difficult traditional test.  
Just makes me wonder why a difficult par is a great test but being able to make birdie on a slightly easier hole is not.

I totally agree with your last sentence but you cannot have a consistent test if the course is made up totally of easy birdie holes that consist of a majority of bomb and gouge holes. To be honest, the gouge element doesn’t even exist on a lot of courses...JT was missing fairways by 70 yards and still having a good lie and a line into the green with no penalty whatsoever. 

 

It’s a great skill to hit the ball long and straight...the pros this week are averaging 40% fairways hit...shows how poor the majority of courses are at testing the long game.

[Shilgy]

25 minutes ago, mahonie said:

I totally agree with your last sentence but you cannot have a consistent test if the course is made up totally of easy birdie holes that consist of a majority of bomb and gouge holes. To be honest, the gouge element doesn’t even exist on a lot of courses...JT was missing fairways by 70 yards and still having a good lie and a line into the green with no penalty whatsoever. 

 

It’s a great skill to hit the ball long and straight...the pros this week are averaging 40% fairways hit...shows how poor the majority of courses are at testing the long game.

My last point... probably ?   If you could play out of rough like WF has so relatively easily would you worry much about fairway hit %?  I have been playing the game for 50+years(geez it hurts to type that) but the biggest change I have seen in golf is not the equipment...it’s the mindset of the players formed by the analytics of a Broadie and the like.  I was always taught as a kid to lay up to favorite wedge yardage on short holes and par 5’s.  Now we are told, and if you think about it it’s truth, to get it as close as possible as long as a hazard does not intervene. Yes, that is the simple version. But think about it. If you are a good wedge player you might average about 20 feet from 100 yards or so. From 60 yards you might be disappointed to be be 16 feet. But it is still better than the layup proximity.

The equipment of today has very little to do with the ability of the modern player to play from the rough. That is largely speed and strength and attitude.

Based on your post you don’t believe that the US Open is a good test this year? WF is not a good enough test?

Edited September 19, 2020 by Shilgy

[tannyhoban]

4 hours ago, Lark said:

Today they hit it past the locations that matter for angles. They hit past where it matters if you are in the rough or not. Holes with hazards and preferred landing spots from 250-300 yards don’t matter anymore, unless they tighten the fairways to 20 yards, grow rough above your ankles, and make greens like concrete, which is boring golf. 

Face it, you'll never be happy with tour  golf. 

[tannyhoban]

What the young long hitters are doing is taking that risky tee shot usually reserved for the longest hitter in an am scramble.

 

It's actually been fun today to hear the talking heads have their brains scrambled. 

And yet the leader will be 5 under.  You'd think the world was gonna end.

[mahonie]

31 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

My last point... probably ?   If you could play out of rough like WF has so relatively easily would you worry much about fairway hit %?  I have been playing the game for 50+years(geez it hurts to type that) but the biggest change I have seen in golf is not the equipment...it’s the mindset of the players formed by the analytics of a Broadie and the like.  I was always taught as a kid to lay up to favorite wedge yardage on short holes and par 5’s.  Now we are told, and if you think about it it’s truth, to get it as close as possible as long as a hazard does not intervene. Yes, that is the simple version. But think about it. If you are a good wedge player you might average about 20 feet from 100 yards or so. From 60 yards you might be disappointed to be be 16 feet. But it is still better than the layup proximity.

The equipment of today has very little to do with the ability of the modern player to play from the rough. That is largely speed and strength and attitude.

Based on your post you don’t believe that the US Open is a good test this year? WF is not a good enough test?

 

I don’t think the rough at WF has been easy by any stretch of the imagination. The winner tomorrow will be near the top in driving accuracy that’s a given. I think that WF has shown itself to be a fair test of golf that rewards good shots and generally punishes bad ones...Wolff’s drive on 18 being the exception.

 

However, given how seemingly penal the rough is at WF surely you can remember when the chances of actually finding a ball in the rough were pretty slim let alone gouging it out...my home course is still like that with 20 yard wide fairways, 2 yards of semi-rough then deep rough or woodland. 40 yards offline doesn’t cut it.

 

The Broadie stats only work on TPC-type courses where you are not penalised for missing fairways. Try the same distance-driven approach on the majority of courses here in the UK and you’d be bankrupt in a season paying out for lost balls. The PGA Tour, one-dimensional model doesn’t work anywhere other than on PGA Tour-style courses. Now if that’s what you play on, that’s fine and fair enough, but on shorter, tighter courses accuracy is king. 

 

Talking of which, if your proximity is 20 feet from 100 yards that’s better than the majority of players in the World Top Ten. DJ was hitting it an average of 17 feet when he was number 1 a couple of years back. Yes, I understand and it’s obvious that the closer you are the lower your score will be. What I am saying is that the PGA Tour courses are designed to make that happen. If the penalty for being 20 yards offline although 20 yards further on was half a shot when compared to being on the fairway, don’t you think more players would be looking for accuracy rather than distance?

[TwistedSister]

On 3/23/2020 at 10:52 AM, dalehead said:

True, but my point is once you step down from the elite level player, PGA Tour players and WRX’ers, the problem you describe goes away.

I have been playing since 1968.  At the age of 64  I hit the driver farther than I ever have.  I don't neccesarily think we have a "problem" but the technology is certainly creating a huge amount more distance. 

[munichop]

The men are playing a course equal in length to the women this week after the elevation adjustment. But at least they get an extra stroke for par...

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, munichop said:

The men are playing a course equal in length to the women this week after the elevation adjustment. But at least they get an extra stroke for par...

Are you using 10%? Seems an awful lot for Las Vegas at 2000’.

[munichop]

5 percent

[Titleist99]

On 3/24/2020 at 11:38 PM, Lincoln_Arcadia said:

The average is 268 on the Champions Tour, but I agree that the top ten drivers are hitting farther than in their prime.

One could also argue that courses were shorter by 20 yards in their prime too.

Pros generally have a lot more “gas left in the tank” than amateurs. Who’s to say that these players like Freddy Couples didn’t have the ability to hit farther in their primes?

From my own observations, I just don’t see that huge an advantage in the newer equipment. What I see are less sideways shots in my game, but pros strike far better than me and would not be affected by bad shots like an amateur.

The other observation I’ve made, 50-60 you don’t really lose that much distance unless you’re really unhealthy. You don’t really drop off until after the 60s. All the players in the top ten are only mid to late 50s.

Not convinced that equipment made this huge difference, but I do agree you can make equipment hit shorter for everyone and keep courses “relevant” whatever that means?

TPC golf courses...that's run by the PGATOUR is what make many courses irrelevant, along with infrastructure restraints. Distance has nothing to do with it. I guess some people think that if you repeat a lie a million time it becomes the truth....LOL! Not you, other people.

[bladehunter]

On 9/19/2020 at 4:30 PM, Titleist99 said:

Golf balls evolved, golf clubs evolved, courses evolved and players evolved.....hopefully the trend will continue.

I’ll wager a bet that if Bryson shows up to Augusta with a 48 inch driver and breaks the records for under par or margin of victory ...... you can gaurantee a rollback coming ASAP of driver and ball.  Best thing Bryson can do to ensure no rollback is withdraw.  Lol.    Mark it down.  

Edited October 10, 2020 by bladehunter

[Titleist99]

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I’ll wager a bet that if Bryson shows up to Augusta with a 48 inch driver and breaks the records for under par or margin of victory ...... you can gaurantee a rollback coming ASAP of driver and ball.  Best thing Bryson can do to ensure no rollback is withdraw.  Lol.    Mark it down.  

Nah, they won't shake up the golf world because of BDC......besides, if Brooks Keopka is health enough to play the Masters BDC might not make the cut because Keopka intimidate him....

[bladehunter]

Just now, Titleist99 said:

Nah, they won't shake up the golf world because of BDC......besides, if Brooks Keopka is health enough to play the Masters BDC might not make the cut because Keopka intimidate him....

Lol. Please Bruce is played out.  He won’t come back anytime soon while nursing knee and hip issues.  And when I say “ comeback “ I mean comeback and be a dominate competitor.   He’s done for the year in that respect.  At least.