Tour Pro Driving Distance

[smashdn]

Why? Because that is the entertainment product being peddled. When it ceases to be entertaining it is not as desirable a product.

 

Pro golf is devolving into a contest that can be held on a par three course.

[gvogel]

I endorse this sentiment.

[oikos1]

I said "shots" because hitting shots is a skill. The choice of which club to hit supports the skill.

I noticed you didn't answer any of the questions. Shall I ask again?

[storm319]

Was the purpose of the PGA Tour in the middle of the last century not also entertainment? Isn't that the primary purpose of any professional sport?

Also, labeling the current state of professional golf as "not as desirable" is highly subjective and that opinion would be in the minority considering the record amounts of money related to the PGA Tour in the past decade.

[Shilgy]

Then why do we see the recovery shots? Why do so many posts claim the pros just smash it all over the lot and play from there? Even though the second shots MAY be shorter than in previous eras your comments make no sense. If they could just play a par 3 course you are implying they all hit the fairway. Yet I seem to recall the opposite from you. Certainly others on your side of the fence claim 1) the ball is too easy to hit straight...and 2) the pros just smash it, find it in the rough, and wedge it close.

It is actually laughable the contradictions.

 

Yes, course strategy has changed a bit over the years. And the players, being stronger on average, are less “rough adverse” in their decisions. Roll the ball back and you may get even more of the play you do not like. There is certainly more of a difference between 5 iron and 8 iron for an approach than there is 8 and PW. So roll it back and MORE players will bomb and gouge looking for that shorter approach shot.

[storm319]

Exactly. Rolling back equipment will not magically transform professional golf today into something that resembles that of the mid 20th century. For those that believe that distance is overemphasized at the elite level today, the goal really should be to identify and reduce the source of the incentive to hit it as far as possible. Lengthening courses or rolling back equipment slightly does not reduce that incentive, if anything it simply strengthens it.

[smashdn]

I think you are attempting to tear holes in an intentional generalization.

 

A recovery shot with a wedge to say an 8 iron is a different challenge than a recovery shot with say an 8 iron to a 4 iron would you agree? The amount of risk changes significantly when you aren't able to drive it as far.

 

Another point. Saying that money is an indication of a good product is not a good argument either. NASCAR is worth tons of money but I don't think you would find many people that would argue it is as good of an entertainment product now as it was in the mid 1990's.

 

Entertainment certainly is the intent of any professional sport. If it is not entertaining you lose your audience. Without an audience you lose the ability to sell your product to those who can sell advertising spots. At the most basic level pro sports are an opportunity to convince you to buy something.

[storm319]

"Saying that money is an indication of a good product is not a good argument either. NASCAR is worth tons of money but I don't think you would find many people that would argue it is as good of an entertainment product now as it was in the mid 1990's."

Again you are confusing subjective opinion with objective fact. Viewership numbers and sponsorship/advertising dollars are a far more reliable metric than asking people's opinions on comparisons vs past eras. If the networks could get the same or higher level of viewership (which they can turn into advertising revenue) on syndication of some old sitcom vs a live sporting event, then that is what they would be broadcasting. If there had been a drastic drop off in PGA Tour viewership since the early 90's then the point you were trying to make would be valid, but the reality is the numbers simply don't support that.

[smashdn]

 

"Exactly. Rolling back equipment will not magically transform professional golf today into something that resembles that of the mid 20th century."

How not or why not? I have to assume you think then that agronomy, fitness and swing optimization are the variables that have greater impacts?

 

"For those that believe that distance is overemphasized at the elite level today, the goal really should be to identify and reduce the source of the incentive to hit it as far as possible."

I'd argue that the incentive to hit it farther will never be taken away. It isn't so much that distance is overemphasized, it is that there is some threshold of distance that we have passed where distance trumps the other skills save for maybe putting. Being able to hit it far is more important to scoring than being in the fairway up to around 150 yards. When your drives almost always are within 150 yards of the green, where the drive ends up is immaterial unless you are blocked by a tree. You just rip a 9 or PW as high as you can and the trajectory will stop it on the green. Putt for birdie, no worse than par.

 

"Lengthening courses or rolling back equipment slightly does not reduce that incentive, if anything it simply strengthens it."

Lengthening courses reduces the number of people in the field that have a real shot to win. Long courses benefit the long players. Making the courses longer exacerbates the problem. Several articles floating the innerwebs that states as much.

Reducing the equipment advantage can help. Provided it is rolled back enough so that intentionally designed long holes are still long and par fives are a real challenge for everyone and not automatic birdie holes.

 

[smashdn]

Money is not the same thing as viewership. If you want to say viewership hasn't faltered say that and provide the data.

 

And you are asking for something that you know no one can provide. The way something is played or presented is absolutely subjective. You'll get no argument from me otherwise. That doesn't mean the argument is not valid.

 

I don't care for how MLB baseball is being played now. I no longer find it entertaining and resent the fact the commissioner is attempting to pander to low intellect viewers with short attention spans by creating superfluous rules counter to how the game has been played for 100+ years.

 

In a similar vein I find professional golf to be so far removed from the actual challenges of the game as designed that it is no longer entertaining for me to watch save for very specific circumstances that are largely brought about by the architecture and weather. The architecture and the elements provide the challenge imo. Equipment that dilutes that test cheapens the visual product. Bowling with bumpers if you will. Or bowling with an oil pattern so benign that everyone is rolling strikes.

 

You guys ever watch darts on TV? I watched for about a half hour one day. They are so accurate that it came down to who started first as to who won in most rounds. Sort of like when the NFL overtime rule that whomever scored first was the winner. It came down to who won the coin-flip and not who was the better team too often.

[bladehunter]

The nascar analogy works in the sense that they abandoned the core audience to go after the greater numbers in the younger non Golfer. Hoping to grab more and keep the “ idiot” core fan. But it didn’t work with nascar. They lost hoards of core fans . People in the south all used to watch the race on Sunday. Everybody. Grandma too. Not anymore . They now have to broadcast worldwide to get the numbers watching. So yes. They maybe making more money. But they abandoned the roots t do it. Golf is doing the same. Sports betting , drunks yelling , 380 yard drives .... next they will wear shorts , give them carts and do on course beer chugs between shots. Why ? $. And the core fan will leave.

 

so you can be correct here and wrong at the same time.

[bladehunter]

Lol. To answer these questions.

 

would the ranking change ? Some yes. Some no. Some wouldn’t be there. and before you , no I’m not playing the name that pro game with you .

 

would anyone on tour growing up playing persimmon not be a tour pro now ? I’m sure there are some . Hard to say who . So again I’m sure that’s where the hook lies , so don’t ask .

 

now to the greater point . Easier isn’t something that Counts for one group and not another . Easier is easier . the point isn’t that today’s fields aren’t level . In fact they are too level. The point is that we’ve jumped the shark now and an era is born that is like the leap from hickory to steel . Nobody sits around comparing jack to old Tom , because that’s not comparable . Same as we now will see that you cannot compared anyone who started the game from around 2010 up to jacks era. It no longer computes as a fair comparison . So when someone breaks jacks record , unless It’s tiger it will have an invisible asterisk by it .... That’s all anyone is saying on that note .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[oikos1]

To be clear, the comment I was speaking to was "The modern game is too easy for the ball strikers. The fact that the equipment is so good demeans their accomplishments."

Comparing eras versus demeaning current players skill sets are two completely different things.

[bladehunter]

I just don’t see it that way. Equipment played directly ties into results , and skill level.

example. If a person shoots 70 on a 7000 yard course with hickory and today’s tour field averages 69.5 on that course for the weekend. I’d have the opinion that the guy shooting 70 with hickory on it is of exceptional skill. ( setups equal )

 

[DON SVO]

I'm just here for more mythical 8 iron carry distance stories...

[oikos1]

That's fair, but we don't know what the tour field would shoot with hickory had they grown up playing hickory. Their skill sets aren't necessarily less, they are using different tools that require different skills.

[disco111]

The golf swing is/has been primarily the same for those playing hickory and the modern tools. The only exception I can see would be the need to swing somewhat smoother and slower when playing with hickory. The modern tools allows for a much more physically stronger swing and therefore it becomes the tools that become the overall difference.

Now if you can find that hickory player that shoots 70 on a 7000 yd course, I know where we can make some large coin in Vegas.

[bladehunter]

I saw a 56 year old teaching pro hit a rocket bladez 4 iron 274 yards yesterday. No lie. Not sure how much was roll ( a lot ) but piped down the middle of a short par 4 . I’m sure it flew 220 at least. For reference. Same guy hits a gap wedge ( vokey) 100 yards. Pretty big gap , from gap wedge to 4 iron. Lol. ( 174 yards ).

[DON SVO]

Yeah, but how far does he carry an 8 iron? ;)

[gvogel]

Have you ever played in a hickory tournament?

[oikos1]

If we follow that logic, than it was also the tools in the hickory era that were the overall difference. Which means you just made a full circle as there is no evidence to suggest that today's modern players, if growing up playing hickory, would have a lesser skill set to be able to "swing somewhat smoother and slower when playing with hickory."

[oikos1]

I'll answer your question, which is no, but I fail to see the significance to the conversation as I am not a tour professional either. You suggested that today's tour professionals skills have been demeaned by the equipment they use. I'm taking the position that as a group, they are just as skilled as professionals of the past. They have learned different skill sets since they were very young to adapt to different tools and playing conditions.

It would be like saying a surgeon who uses less invasive laser surgery techniques is "less skilled" than a surgeon 30 years ago who uses scalpel and stitches and leaves a 6 inch scar. Technology doesn't necessarily make one less skilled, it enhances or allows for individuals to adapt their skill.

[disco111]

Re-read your answer, because you just validated my position.............."then it was also the tools in the hickory era that were the overall difference" The tools of the modern player are the difference, for the golf swing has not changed from era to era. There really is no different skill set involved, just the increased velocity of the modern swing, which the tools now allow for. No matter how you slice it, it all comes back to the equipment. But since you have never had the pleasure of hitting a hickory, you really have no ability to compare the "skill" factor.

[gvogel]

Let's forget about skill for a minute, although I think that there were players in the hickory era who had skill comparable to modern players (ie: Bobby Jones).

We are discussing tour pro driving distance. My experience playing with hickory, and playing and discussing the subject with some very skilled hickory players, is that driving distance achieved with hickory is a good deal less than with modern equipment. In fact, I know some very good hickory players who would compete with their Saturday morning groups using a modern driver, and then the rest of their hickories in the bag. We all experienced a fairly dramatic difference in driving distance between hickory and modern.

Some reasons: COR. Size of driver head made bad shots worse, so more caution was taken. Torque of hickory shafts also caused problems. And the weight of hickory shaft, 150 grams versus 60 to 70 grams in a modern shaft, also a difference.

[bladehunter]

Lol. Yep. I’ll watch him closely. My guess. Around 133. ?

[DON SVO]

Very respectable!

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

The real issue is that so many amateurs think it helps them so much that they project improvements of modern equipment to the pros as well. “It helps me, so it must help them” is flawed thinking.

[oikos1]

When did I say I never had the pleasure of hitting hickory? I have. Again, not that it is relevant. I would never be so arrogant as to suggest that because I too have hit hickory clubs, today's modern player is not as skilled as the players of the past. An odd path you have chosen to reach your conclusion.

I find this answer quite telling. It highlights a strange need for certain golfers to find a reason to suggest players of today aren't as good as the past because of the equipment used. An odd, psychological ego compensation I suppose which suggests your opinion will always be founded in a non-factual basis.

 

 

[disco111]

Well since you didn't answer the question offered by gvogel, the natural conclusion was that you never hit hickory. But since you have now validated that question and you still feel that the skill levels are equal the presumption that the equipment is not an overly contributing factor tells more than your exhausting rhetoric with psychological babble.

[bladehunter]

Lol. No it isn’t. A miss is a miss. And a miss is helped. Launch angle is Launch angle. It does not know the handicap of the player . Speed is multiplied by the same factor. Please explain how there is no help.

 

and also. Please explain why that IF there is no help , then we fear a pro rollback ? If it makes no difference why not do it ?