Tour Pro Driving Distance

[gvogel]

Well played.

[Lark]

Butch Harmon calls for bifurcation:

“I think technology should be for the average player and not the Tour player,” Harmon said earlier this week on an Instagram live video with his son, Claude Harmon III, also a longtime instructor. “I think the Tour should have its own rules.”

The changes center around distance. The current technology for professionals is making “some great golf courses obsolete,” Butch Harmon said, as players are hitting it longer than previous generations. ...

Golf is also the only sport, Harmon said, where former stars would be better if given the new equipment. He used NFL middle linebackers as an example – Sam Huff, Ray Nitschke, Dick Butkus and Chuck Bednarik “couldn’t even play today; they couldn’t pass cover.” Ben Hogan, Sam Snead, Byron Nelson, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus would be better, as “the game has gotten easier for the good players because of equipment.”

“People will say, ‘Well, how can you say the game of golf’s gotten easier?’ It hasn’t gotten easier for us because we’re not that talented,” Harmon said. “But because of the club heads, because the balls don’t curve as much – the reason that these young players can hit the ball so far is they can swing that hard at it because it doesn’t spin. If you swung that hard at a wooden driver and a soft ball, that thing is going to go right off the planet.”

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

What’s the definition of an “obsolete” course? Pros aren’t shooting in the low 50s consistently anywhere?

Equally arguable, is the fact that a big part of the awe and appeal of pros are the longer distance they hit. It will continue to be the appeal in years to come too.

They’ll continue to get longer off the the tee and what’s wrong with that?

[fowlerscousin]

imo, when i see these guys hit the ball IRL my eye doesnt really notice the difference in carry between a 290 ish carry and a 318 carry. to me 290 just looks like an absolute bomb, i can only imagine an older person with diminished eye sight. Like anything there is a diminishing return.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Right, but I don’t understand why courses are considered obsolete due to longer hitters? No one drives all the par 4 yet.

When the day comes when half the field drives 400 yards, I promise to be right up with the equipment shortening folks.

[disco111]

They’ll continue to get longer off the the tee and what’s wrong with that?

 

Well that's the crux of the entire discussion. The main reason is due to the fact that in order to keep a definitive distance equation of most courses, they would be forced to acquire more land and that's just not feasible for many except for the deep pocket private courses and even some of those would not have land availability. You have to ask yourself, would you want to play a course that you don't need or will use most of your clubs and skill or rather just carry a driver and an assortment of wedges. Personally, I'm against anything that will eventually result in paying more to play.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

That’s what’s so confusing, why lengthen the courses? Just let the scores drop.

When everyone is shooting in the low 50s, then we worry. Multiple way ties are more exciting to watch anyway. Then we can watch playoff holes!

I say, let the scores drop!

[Lark]

To me, it’s boring to watch nearly every par-4 be a wedge approach, and nearly every par-5 be fairly reachable in two shots, sometimes without even needing driver. Watching the Tour would be more fun if the challenges were greater or more strategic, which the massive distance eliminates, and not as reliant on tricked up green speeds.

[storm319]

The only courses where this perceived “problem” exists are the handful that host PGA events on tv and those courses have the funds to expand if they wish to (this has zero impact on the majority of courses). Not to mention the fact that there have been negligible gains according to the USGA since the primary regulations were adopted on the late 90s/early 2000s. There is no reason for the vast majority of courses to lengthen nor will there likely be any sizable average distance gains in the foreseeable future.

[storm319]

At the same time, it is difficult to distinguish between these pros hitting a wedge vs a 7 or 8 iron approach on tv so a rollback to the magnitude that has been previously suggested really wouldn’t change the tv optics very much.

[gvogel]

I am reading a Bernard Darwin book about James Braid. There is a description of two pros, playing gutties, hitting driver, brassie and then an iron on a 400 yard par 4 (into the wind). think about that for a minute, and how that would enhance the prospects of players who could really hit driver and fairway wood.

As far as I am concerned, bring back the gutty.

[smashdn]

To your second sentence, that was the path that baseball went down. "Chicks dig the long ball." Now everyone swings for the fences and the "art" of manufacturing runs is being lost.

[smashdn]

At some point the value of driving it long is diminished. When everyone is long, no one is long. It ceases to be an advantage. Whether you have a wedge from 80 or 95 it really matters not to these guys. When it gets to the point that all the second shots are all somewhere from 120-20 yards or so we might as well just move the game from the full-size course and have it at a par three course.

[gvogel]

That is a very good point. It may also be why players such as Rory McIlroy won't play shorter courses like Harbor Town and Colonial - his driving excellence is negated by the course.

[disco111]

This seems to be the reply of many and in truth, it's not correct. There are many golfers who do not fit into the "elite" mold, but can play very well. They play your everyday muni's / military and semi private courses that are land locked and they have the ability to hit just as far or further than the pros do. These courses have now become the simplistic driver-wedge combo. I'm sure there are many of you who play with or you yourself are in that position. We have to face facts, even if you don't want to and that is that the game has gotten out of hand distance wise and truth be told............everybody knows it!!!

[disco111]

I just happened on this in another thread and it should offer some validity to my position..........thanks to munihack

 

I think you can answer this yourself. Go to the course you play the most and drop a ball 70 yards in front of where your normal drive on that hole stops and play in from there. The other alternative is move up 70 yards on each tee and tee up there and play in. For me when I play with the younger guys in city events the 70 yards is about right between our drives. for them it is a wedge and pitching game vs my much longer approach shots. Most of the time they are hit or miss on the short shots and don't score much better. But if they have a short game they always shoot 64-67 without much trouble. I shot a course record a few years back from the white tees. The mounding for drives and the carry distances made the course much easier off the tee than it plays from the back. I had a hot day putting and a bogey free 62 was the result. I play those tees now all the time since they are appropriate for my ever shrinking club head speed. But 65 is my best score since then. You still have to wedge it and putt it. Hence DJ's big leap in consistency when he dialed in his wedges. So I agree with Ferguson that is can be 2-3 a side but only if your wedge game and pitching game is solid.

[storm319]

The difference is that the USGA does not really seem to care about these players because a) they are anomalies and 2) due to lack of visibility (just like the anchoring debacle, it wasn't an issue until there was an increase in Tour adoption). The local munis that these players play on are not drastically lengthening as a result. Based on the USGA's own data, US course distance ranges have only increased by approximately 100 yards at the 50th and 90th percentiles of courses since 1990 (the big increase trend happened between 1930 and 1990).

Ultimately what happens from tee to green is irrelevant if the final number of strokes it takes to put the ball into the hole remains relatively static.

[storm319]

If land and environmental costs are the primary concern, then scaling par back (at least eliminating par above 4) or reducing the number of holes played in a championship round become logical solutions. A 10-15% efficiency rollback of the ball at the pro-typical level will not resolve future land scarcity concerns.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

There’s a lot of “art” being lost. I call it “working with the tools at hand” which is perfectly fine for the time. Times change and the game changes.

I don’t consider hitting from deep in the woods an “art” either. Just an exciting bit of fun when things work out!

I’m fine with the prospect of everyone hitting long and straight. I don’t see it as an advantage so much as an opportunity to speed up the game.

That would likely change when everyone else hits long.

Rory is quite the master hitting approach and short game shots too. There are plenty of videos showing a little Rory making nearly impossible shots close up.

Insanely talented.

 

[Lark]

Having played recreational golf at all types of courses, I can count on one hand how many times I have played with anyone who can hit driver as far as the pros. Sure, top college competitors and amateur competition players can, but most all recreational golfers are not driving it anywhere near the distances the pros drive. I think the survey showed something like the average drive for below 10 handicaps was around 230-240, and above 10 handicap around 220, or something like that.

[gvogel]

Your opinion is that what happens is irrelevant. For many of us, the nature of how the game is played is exactly relevant depending upon course length and equipment.

[smashdn]

That wasn't where I was going with that at all.

 

Par is irrelevant for the most part. It only serves to judge where a person in a field stands relative to others that have played a different number of holes. Total strokes is what matters when it is all said and done. (Aside from that there is a slight mental aspect to it when playing.)

 

My point was when everyone can drive it within about the same length and ability it is no longer as important a skill that differentiates your game from the field. For instance, take a 400 yard par four. If I drive it 300 and have a 100 yard wedge shot left, there is not much difference in outcome if you drive it 320 and have 80 yards left. The differentiation of abilities is more pronounced on longer approaches. In SG terms the difference in SG between a 100 yard approach and an 80 yard approach is smaller than that of a 160 yard approach and a 180 yard approach though they are both the same distances apart.

I've said this before and I still think it to be true, I just don't have the numbers nor time to crunch them, but there is a "break point" distance or a desirable leave distance that creates the largest amount of variation in scores within a field. I don't know what it is for sure but I am inclined to think it is around 150-160. Guys who drive it far and in the fairway are at a sizeable advantage and have less distance, say 140-130 left. Guys who drive it far and in the rough have a shot where the rough actually matters at most venues. Guys that are short (180-170 left) but in the fairway are probably right around the same for the long guys in the rough. Guys that are short off the tee and leave 180-170 and are in the rough are at a decided disadvantage. (That being said you don't want a course full of holes all the same length either. And you don't have to have that if you can devise features, that truly impact, decisions off the tee that really make you pause before you reach for the big dog. A bunker at 290 simply does not do that any longer. The answer can't be move the bunker every time. It also can't be move the box back.) The upper end of abilities results has expanded while the middle has stayed the same.

When you start to have much shorter leaves than 150-160 it seems to me that the outcomes are less dispersed and varied. Put another way, a 100 yard shot (or shorter) from the rough is not significantly worse than a 100 yard shot (or shorter) from the fairway.

[gvogel]

Rory is insanely talented.

Consider a world where it is very difficult to hit the ball long distance, and straight - sort of like the era from 1895 to 1914. Three players dominated the game because their skill in hitting the ball elevated them above their peers. J H Taylor, Harry Vardon, James Braid. Yes, their scores in major championships were often in the high 70's. Is modern change always good? I don't think so when it comes to games. Medicine, transportation, housing - absolutely. Games? No.

Consider a world in which the ball was dialed way back - perhaps it would be only 1 piece, and a bunch shorter. Driver heads would be 200 cc or less. If driver heads are 200 cc or less, shafts would be correspondingly shorter - you just can't hit a 10* 200 cc driver consistently with a 45-1/2" shaft. In this world, I think that we would have 3 or 4 golfers who would dominate - Rory, Brooks, maybe DJ, maybe Jon Rahm. Those guys would figure out a way to spin a 1 piece ball around the greens, because of their talent. They would be longer than their peers with a driver size of 200cc. That could be very good for the game.

[smashdn]

"I’m fine with the prospect of everyone hitting long and straight. I don’t see it as an advantage so much as an opportunity to speed up the game."

 

When they are for the most part getting the same results why not do away with driving all together? Just walk out into the fairway and drop a ball at a given yardage away from the hole. Do that until you can get the tour events all moved to par three courses.

[storm319]

My point was that many people bring up land scarcity/maintenance costs as disingenuous arguments for an equipment rollback when in reality it would take a severe global equipment rollback, massive redesign investment, as well as permanent closure of a massive number of courses in order to solve the problem. For most people arguing for a rollback, land is not even close to the primary concern even though it is continually brought up (the time to really be up in arms was when we saw thousands of new course builds accompanying housing developments during the boom in the mid-late 90's/early-2000's).

[storm319]

If by "many" you mean a relatively small number in relation to all golfers, I agree :)

[gvogel]

Well, by many, I can include Tiger Woods, Rory McIlroy, the guys at the USGA, all of the guys I ever met at hickory tournaments (hundreds), and others who agree that the game has changed and for the worst. So there are more than you realize. And some of the longest of the long realize a change should be necessary.

And then there are all of the really fine golfers of the past who realize that the skill of tee to green has been lessened by modern technology - which makes it a lot easier for a rank and file tour pro to win a major.

And then there are probably most of the members of Augusta National who would rather see the ball changed than change the 13th hole, and lengthen no more holes there.

[disco111]

Ultimately what happens from tee to green is irrelevant if the final number of strokes it takes to put the ball into the hole remains relatively static.

 

While I fully agree with this statement, I find that scoring becomes better when hitting a wedge as opposed to a 5/6/7 iron. I'm fairly certain that the majority of golfers would agree.

 

Having played recreational golf at all types of courses, I can count on one hand how many times I have played with anyone who can hit driver as far as the pros.

You actually validated my position..........you have played with, be it a small number, of players that can hit it as far as the pro's. I on the other hand play with a number of flat bellies both on base and at several other courses, that can certainly carry 300+. When a 550+ par 5 becomes a driver and for some of these guys a 6 or 7 iron second shot, well you can see the reason for the distance debate. It's just not the pro's........

[storm319]

 

 

Rory's comments were in passing to the press, I would not consider it to be a thoughtfully crafted response that would be the hill that he would die on. The points he mentioned in relation to the distance insights report were that it really only pertains to ".1 percent" of the golfing population and that if the USGA wanted to try to "contain" tour professionals, he would be "all for that". Nowhere did he state that he supported a global or sizable rollback but some people seem to be misconstruing a casual sound byte as support for such an endeavor.

Next, if there was sizable demand for hickory tournaments, it would be would be heavily sponsored, televised, and the big OEMs would be producing new clubs from that time period. The reality is that while there may be more supporting your viewpoint than most realize, but ultimately it is a small niche with very low demand.

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

Haha, right.

Qualifiers for the round would be held on long drive grounds. 14 perfect drives, top 25 in distance and accuracy qualify for the short round.

Short round has to include what used to be par5 with at least four drivable par 4.

It could certainly contain course sizes many seem to be complaining about?

I laugh now, but who knows what the coming century will bring Lol!