Tour Pro Driving Distance

[oiler45]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still don't understand how a perceived problem that affects less than 1% of all golfers and a handful of championship courses should cause any detrimental changes to the 99 plus percent of the rest of the planet's golfers. And yes - a shorter distance ball or inferior equipment is detrimental to the majority of golfers.

[dalehead]

How do you conclude driving distance will go up 10 yards in the next 10 years? You can’t just make that assumption. As noted driving distance average in 2019 was 293. In 2009 it was 288. It actually went down in 2019 compared to 2018.

[dalehead]

it was undesirable? So what did they do? They took 17 years to produce a study.

[smashdn]

And now they want to act on the study to rectify the issue.

[storm319]

Exactly. The longer pros on tour constantly talk about how they swing closer to 85% on average shots and definitely have more in the tank so I would expect a boomer Champions Tour player to be no different. Also typical angle of attack and the understanding of optimal launch conditions have changed drastically vs 30+ years ago so while equipment has had an impact on older players swinging faster (mainly lower weight), there are other swing related factors that have simply increased efficiency.

[Sean2]

I was watching a replay of the HSBC match play. Kuchar and Kisner have a ball speed in the mid-160's. I couple of carries were 260...but getting a lot of roll.

[Golfrnut]

Perhaps it may be worth taking a look at this from a different angle?

What if the recommended idea is not to necessarily slow the ball down (everyone keeps referring to ball speed and distance gained), and lets start reducing the ability for the ball to eat spin and limit the curve? We know there were limited players nearing/over the 300 yd mark before the turn of the century, so not a ton of change there (although one can argue 10 yards can be the difference between a bunker being in play and not). Lets make the ball spin more again, and bring finesse back into the game that way. Lets watch them hit a 4 iron 175 when the wind is up, hit chippy 8 irons from 100 yards. You pound the ball and can control your curve, good on you. You freewheel and depend on the ball to not go that far offline, you don't get as much help any more. Spin is already not a huge game changer in terms of distance, it's contribution to it has been over-inflated for years. Give the ball the ability to snap 60 yards offline and let the hard ball hitters have at trying to control it.

[nitram]

The agronomy and condition of the course is as much to blame for the "problem" if not more so, as is the ball, equipment, and athleticism. And is easier to control without impacting everyone else in the world.

[storm319]

Spin is highly dependent on angle of attack/dynamic loft which has changed drastically at the elite level in the past 30 years. Drivers today also have much lower CG relative to common impact locations compared to the past so the ball is not the only variable when it comes spin reduction off the tee vs the wound balata era. So even some kind of spin minimum was put into place all it will really do is change the optimum AoA/dynamic loft target which players can adjust their swings to and OEMs would adjust CG to make up the difference. The only rollback that would actually be universally effective be reducing the ball velocity limit (the only way to make up those losses would be to swing faster).

[Golfrnut]

You are saying a lot of things in your posts which just aren't factual info. The AoA average on tour has not really changed...and that's actually a tracked stat...so no. If you want to really go down that road, head lofts are the biggest difference, and those have actually increased to retain a higher launch as the ball manufacturers have reduced the spin. It hasn't been a player reaction to reduce spin, the ball manufacturers have reduced the spin and the players/equipment has reacted. Even with all that, the ball still spins less off the drivers than it did in years past, and it does so with a lot more loft.

CG has not really altered all that much either. That is easily tested/proven. You are listening too much to marketing. The amount that can be varied is still measured in mm, and we have gone back and forth on low/forward CG vs higher/back for many years now...none of that was breakthrough tech. A lot of what you are saying is not reality.

If everything was that easy, everyone would be swing 5 up by now, yet the tour average is still around 0 even knowing there is an advantage.

[bladehunter]

Bingo. Most tour guys still hit down on driver or at best around 0-+1. Rory is the main exception to that. He has to hit way up to make up for his lack of leverage. This is what he learned as a small kid. And he can control it. Most cannot. And don’t need to.

[storm319]

Where exactly are you finding quantifiable metrics for angle of attack for tour players pre-1990? How about average range of face angles considering that would have the greatest impact on lateral starting direction as well as spin axis? If any data actually does exist, how was it measured and is it normalized like the data that is captured today?

As for CG, I was referring to vertical CG in relation to impact location on the face. Larger heads = more potential space above/below the CG. CG below the ball at impact = higher launch & lower spin. If you look at a sub 200 cc persimmon shaped driver, there is very little room on the face to meet that condition.

As for the face to back CG marketing over the past decade, I agree that is BS considering the range of most drivers on the market during that time has been within a box of a few mm. The benefits of movable weight technology and use of composites are also drastically overstated because the amount of weight nor the redistribution distance are drastic enough to make an a material impact on CG.

There where were many factors at play when we saw more drastic distance increases occur to the point that it is impossible to isolate the impact of a single variable. The reality is no equipment rollback will change the way that the pros approach the game today (if anything it will challenge pros and OEMs to make up the difference and have the opposite effect than was intended).

[QuigleyDU]

Is this the troll thread I think it is??

[Golfrnut]

 

It's been measured for over a decade on paper. Do you really think that they all modified their swings from 5+ down to where they are now all before the stats were tracked? Again, AoA average is still around zero for the tour, even today.

As for CG, they are still above the equator of the head. You move away from the CG at impact, you lose ball speed....that hasn't changed. Just because there is more room above/below, doesn't mean you can move farther away with the impact.

As far as my original point of spin, your above points would only really hold true if it involved the driver/fairway heads. The actual results of the ball changes extend much further than that and into the irons, which hasn't changed at all in tech really when it comes to those things that really have an effect on spin. Ball spin, even with the irons, has dropped dramatically over the decades due to the ball. The clubs didn't change that, the ball did.

[Stinger83]

The same people saying "distance is a problem" are also bragging about the 330 yard drives jack Nicklaus used to hit in the 70s

 

[bladehunter]

Yes. They want so badly to drag in amateur needs. But it’s pigeon holed to pro only. So half the “ what about the children. “ arguments don’t apply.

[bladehunter]

Sure. It took more ability to do it.

 

same as a 170 yard 8 iron with a traditional MB and loft takes more skill than a 170 yard 8 iron that’s pxg or p790. It’s not hard to figure this out.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Exactly, and the same people are essentially objecting to an entire field of Jacks that we have now in the modern era. Perplexing to say the least.

Not at all, I think your thread is overloaded with posts. Time to start another 100 page thread.

[storm319]

"Comparison is the thief of joy" ~Theodore Roosevelt

[Simp]

This. Problem solved.

[bladehunter]

“ we all struggle with limitations, some we’re willing to accept , some we’re not . It’s never too late to grow in life”. Jay Pritchett

[Ashley Schaeffer]

"63% of things that you read on the Internet are not true." -Abraham Lincoln

[bladehunter]

@Ashley Schaeffer
“ It’s the fastest who gets paid and the fastest who gets laid “ Reese Bobby

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Haha, so true! If the internet existed in his time I’m sure it would be the same number of people complaining about the gutta-percha ball and “Ye Olde USGA” would have us all go back to the feathery.

[Stinger83]

Distance is not skill. Every dude in my normal foursome can hit an 8i 170 and some of them have never broken 80. And there are a lot of dudes way faster than me. It's not just the clubs - you have REAL athletes playing golf now. Division one basketball players were NOT playing golf in the 70s.

[bladehunter]

im not going to disagree with you completely. As Distance doesn’t shock me. I’m usually the one in your place telling folks what I see and getting the crickets sound as if there aren’t beasts in the wild all over. I can hit a modern 8 iron 170 plus without issue . But I prefer traditional lofts for wedge gaping purposes and that turns 170 into a stepped on 8 or a stock 7 . And I’m 40 as of Dec .

 

but. I can’t agree that distance isn’t a skill. Because as much as I too play with loads of guys who are long , I know that you can’t just decide to be long and then do it. It’s something someone either is or isnt. You can polish the talent. But not just acquire it from scratch. . Unless we are defining “ skill “ differently. I include Natural ability as skill.

[disco111]

Distance comes from 2 factors' 1) is swing speed and 2) is the loft of the club, with SS being the prominent factor. Now where does skill factor in?..........well even though you can hit that 8 iron 170 yds in length, if you can't hit it where you want/need it to go, then skill is off the table

As for more athletic individuals playing, just look at the tour and there are more than a few who are not super fit and or gym rats and they still have game. Not everybody on tour is the same physical make up of DJ or AS 6'2+ and slim with miles of flexibility. Guys like Reed, Apebarnrat(sp) are not alone in their physical makeup and even some young guns like Ricky, JT, Spieth are not large body builder types, but rather of normal stature and they can pound it. What it really comes down to is that the equipment has more than leveled the playing field for guys on the tour. There will always be those like Rahm (not the most copy able swing) that can air mail it with the best of them and he's another example of a non Adonis figure.

The Palmer and Nicklaus era had their share of guys who were long by the standards of the day, but you also had guys that where short and they still managed to be contenders. The big difference then was the equipment was not a major factor in playing ability as it is in today's game.

[DREWZER300]

One of the longer hitters I know is 65 years old and can still get it out to 285-290 on a regular basis. He isn't a physical specimen by any means and uses an old Walter Hagen AWS driver that came out in the early/mid 2000s.

[smashdn]

This, no. You just trade one set of problems for another.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Right, I’m not exactly an athlete and can hit those distances as well. I carry my 8i 150-160 yards and can easily lower my trajectories to roll out to 170.

In response to the older clubs going shorter because of traditional lofts, my MP32 go farther than my i20s. The i20 spins a lot more and weigh far less than the MP32 making them easier to carry, and I don’t need the extra 5 yards or so of carry distance with the MP32.

Wait, what problems are they trading? Grass is allowed to grow longer? Less balls will be lost?

I can’t think of anything bad about slowing down fairways?