Why are we so quick to penalize distance?

[oikos1]

The arguments for maintenance costs and energy and water consumption just don't add up. Tightening fairways and growing rough/expanding waste areas, while they may not look pretty, would actually reduce costs and environmental impacts.

[Tasals]

Youre right. I looked up driving distance and really going back to 2010 and looking at the top 10 in distance, the only really repeat names that stick around and have more than 5 wins are Rory, DJ, Bubba, JDay, Adam Scott, JB Holmes, JT. Even then Day, Scott, and JT drop out of the top 10, Scott hasnt been top 10 in distance since 2015. A lot of guys with no to few wins on that list over the years.

[Leftlove94]

Jealousy. Distance can only be taught to a certain extent. Physical ability takes over after than and it’s not just a a game of “skill”.

[anythingfinite]

A few things:

1. If it was just equipment, everyone would be crazy long, incl the average golfer. That isn't born out in the data at all.

2. I don't buy the argument about making older courses obsolete. For a couple reasons. 2013 at Merion (under 7000 yds) was won at +1 on a wet golf course. Pebble Beach is just over 7000 yds and no one is saying it's obsolete. Just add bunkers where the guys drive it. That is a lot cheaper than continually maintaining acres and acres of added turfgrass.

3. This entire argument comes down to protecting 1 hole on the planet. The 13th at ANGC. That hole was designed to force a player to hit a cut over water with a long iron/wood off of a hook lie or to lay up. Because its now driver - 8i, distance is a problem. I get it. The hole is diminished by the big hitters but to roll back equipment because of that is silly.

[freowho]

I like McKenzie but I don't think grace is a part of the distance debate anymore.

[cxx]

Distance is it's own reward. If you want to cut the corner and can clear the trees and land past a dogleg more power to you. You don't need to make it easier though. Those landing areas should be protected with rough or bunkers. No reason to let someone have a clear shot past the trouble. Otherwise might as well play on an open field in Nebraska. (a style of course favored by some)

[gvogel]

They put slopes in greens to make the game more difficult for good putters. Many of the anti-rollback folks say that the rough should be higher, or bunkers should be added to make the game more difficult - counter the ease of play afforded by modern equipment (especially the 460 cc driver).

Mr. Titleist maintains that any course of any length can hold a tournament for the best players - but doesn't that effectively mean that you could play the US Open on an executive or par-3 course?

Of course not. Part of the charm of the game is that it IS difficult. As a fan, and as a player, I would like to see more difficulty added back to the game. Why not change the ball and the driver? Long players are still going to be long players.

Keep the modern equipment for beginners and old folks. If you want to be a player, at some point you graduate to smaller drivers and shorter balls.

[widow-maker]

If they roll back the ball, the big hitters will still have an advantage because they'll still be closer to the green after their tee shots. They're not trying to penalize distance. They're trying to reel in the ridiculous costs of retrofitting golf courses to modern standards and then maintaining an extra 1,000 yds of golf course. Eventually, that cost is passed on to those that play recreational golf. It's not the PGA Tour pros who are paying for course maintenance. It's members dues and green fees, cart fees, the price of a hot dog. It's a runaway train and eventually newcomers aren't going to come to golf because it's too expensive as a hobby.

[wobgon]

Finally a thread about this......

[Titleist99]

Golf is evolving but a lot of people do not want it to evolve. Most want the game to go back to when their father and grandfather played. The days of hitting a one iron into par fours are long gone.

[Titleist99]

One thing is certain though.....If they played a U.S. Open on an executive course, the one with the fewest strokes would win and a champion would be crowned at the end. Someone always receives a trophy and a large check regardless of the yardage. The first U.S. Open was played in 1895 at Newport country club....36 hole competition and played in a single day.... a champion was still crowned. *(9 hole course)...I do believe.

[gvogel]

Well, you are exactly right. But how many would feel that they were cheated out of finding the best champion golfer of the year?

[Darth Putter]

We also have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to the other end of the course.

Think of all the putters and putting styles that have been banned across the decades.

Is Langer anchoring? Should locked arm putting be outlawed? Ban putters longer than 36 inches? Is that a putter head or a hammer from the Space Shuttle?

 

Probably the same motive, I yip it from ten inches, they should too.

[Ghost of Snead]

Everyone is not crazy long but they're certainly longer than they would be with persimmon and balata. But the bifurcation argument is at the pro level, not with the millions of ams.

Scores at Merion were higher as they had wind and the USGA had some ridiculous pin positions. Pebble doesn't need any changes as its defense is wind, weather & poa annua greens.

If ANGC really wanted to silence the distance debate on the 13th, they'd make it a par 4. But they bought land at Augusta CC just in case to move the tee back and keep it a par 5.

Every course is different and would have to be addressed individually. The majority of fans/viewers don't want to see driver/50 yard LW in a playoff at the Waste Management. Or 400 yard par 4s driven with regularity. Or weekly scores at 20 under or higher. Purists argue the 2-6 irons are basically obsolete in today's pro game.

Stands to reason that if Bryson can figure out and train how to hit it 350+, someone else will come along and do the same at 375+. Equipment will continue to improve so where does it end ?

 

[driveandputtmachine]

You don't have to penalize longer players, Bryson has great skill to hit the ball as far and as straight as he has been doing. However there are many cases where he has had a wider fairway to hit into as well. THAT IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

Right now at most PGA tour setups you have a huge fairway to hit in the 250-280 range, A really small fairway in the the 280-320 area. Then another big fairway to hit into in the 320+ plus range.

That cannot be the standard. Should every course be the same, or every hole on each course be the same? Of course not, but don't give an advantage to the longer players by the typical shown above.

Look at the design of the Old course. Sure, are the fairways are 70-80 yards wide on some holes? Yes they are. However if you play to the fat side of the fairway you now have a bunker or big mounds in between you and the hole and with the ground as hard as it usually is you cannot run the ball to the hole to get it close. This kind of thought has to be put into every course and how the setup is for people who can fly it Bryson's length or even Rory and the others. You have to take into account the ground you are designing on, rainfall in the area and what you are trying to accomplish. The old course still holds up to top level am play, and if the wind blows a bit it holds up to pro play, but to do so they had to add some new tee boxes(It is only 6700 from the normal tips). Would the old course hold up to Bryson flying it 320? If the wind isn't blowing, probably not, but then it doesn't hold up to any pro if the wind isn't blowing. I doubt Old Tom even remotely considered someone hitting a golf ball Jack's length, let alone, Couples, then Daly, then DJ, then Finau Woodland, Champ and Bryson's lengths.

[smashdn]

We like the thought of competitive balance. We like the thought of David overcoming Goliath. We like the thought of the shorter player tacking his way around the course and being equal or besting the long driver.

 

40 years ago there was more balance between rewarding accuracy and rewarding distance. The correlation between accuracy and scoring was stronger. Now it is not. Distance trumps accuracy. The David's of the world have that much less chance of besting Goliath.

 

Basically, hitting the ball an extra three yards is worth around 2% in driving accuracy, meaning a golfer should be indifferent to adding three yards of distance if it means giving up 2% in accuracy.

From https://golfanalytics.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-intersection-of-driving-distance-accuracy/

What is easier, adding distance or adding accuracy?

[J13]

It makes short hitters very insecure and crushes their ego. It's pretty much a $%(# measuring contest and the little guys get angry. As a result it must be stopped and outlawed despite the hard work a player puts in.

[dlygrisse]

Long hitters got a lot longer with the new equipment. 40-50 yards. Shorter hitters got slightly longer. The rich got richer in terms of distance. Also it's makin the classic courses play in a manner the architect did not intend. If everyone would have gotten 40-50 yards longer then it would seem more equitable, but that's not what happened. The USGA blew it.

[ebrasmus21]

The bombers have Distance-Privilege. It must be checked.

[J13]

In the last 15 years carry distance has only increased by about 8-10yds with the longer hitters and that's only in a few cases. Total distance in the last 20 years has increased about 15yds. The exaggerated numbers being thrown around are ridiculous which brings me back to my point. If guys want to get longer off the tee then earn it instead of complaining like children. Bryson and plenty of other pro's have shown it can be done with hard work in the gym and kitchen. R&A and USGA will not doubtingly mess this up like they do everything else.

[DavePelz4]

With you and don't understand those who are jealous of my stunningly good Dad bod looks.

 

[Smada962]

How come its always only the USGA that blew it? Why not the R&A also? I don't see them mandating rolled back balls or wooden heads.

[Mcgeeno]

JMO but I don't think we've been too quick to penalize distance. The courses the tour plays right now just have no real trouble at 350 yards off the tee haha.

 

Look at the wedge groove rule, putter anchoring, side saddle, broomstick putters, ball changes, etc.

 

All of it has been a story at one time or another.

 

There is a balance to be found whether you have faith the USGA and governing bodies find it is another story.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

 

In the past 15 years, the tour average driving distance has increased a grand total of...

 

7 yards

 

From 287-294

 

Driving distance leader in 2006: Bubba Watson at 319.6 yards average

 

Driving distance leader in 2019: Cameron Champ at 318 yards

 

2020 driving distance leader: Bryson at 323 yards. Fantastic but not that much more than previous leaders. Champ is at 322. And then the rest of the pack (Rory etc) is 10 yards back.

 

BD is getting attention, rightfully so, but him and Champ are outliers. Champ has more natural speed than BD. BD is swinging out of his shoes. I think BD will revert back to where Rory is. Still a huge improvement for him in a short time. And even Champ May dial it back like others have done to score better.

 

 

 

 

 

[jonsnow]

Not checked, cancelled. I'm calling for distance privilege to be de-platformed. Failing that, distance redistribution.

[jholz]

Overall, the thinking/debate on these topics is both overly simplistic and focused on short rather than long term implications. Ultimately, this is a ridiculously complex topic, and one that is heavily influenced by personal preference or opinion. I don't know how to solve the distance problem in golf. I'm not even sure it is a problem yet, but I can theorize about how it could become one.

 

At the end of the day, the debate over distance is about keeping golf - at all of it's levels - as accessible and competitive as it can be to the widest number of players. That's one of the most beautiful things about golf - anyone who is physically able to swing a club has the potential to play the game at a high level. Yet, with the emphasis on distance and power, that potential population of high level golfers is effectively shrinking. That's a big problem. How many of us who started playing the game young had dreams of playing on tour? While they might have been dreams, that kept us coming back to the golf course, kept us engaged in the game. Even though those dreams didn't come true for the vast majority of us, we continued to play. The same could be true for the player who starts later - perhaps not playing on tour, but at least playing to a high level.

 

People complain all the time about how kids don't participate in sports the way that they used to. They point to video games, laziness, and all sorts of other reasons for why this is happening, but the clear culprit is the fact that not everyone can play anymore. If you don't have the necessary genes, time to spend in the weight room, the money to hire coaches and play on travel teams, then a huge percentage of organized sports are simply not available to you. That's a travesty.

 

How many undersized players play in the NFL or NBA these days? How many wily pitchers who throw in the high 80's can survive in MLB? How about a defensive shortstop who bats .200? As those kinds of players have been worked out of the games by the emphasis on size and power, so too are the kids who might have been those kinds of players. As a result, how many kids simply turn away from these sports and find something different to do? I would argue that it is a lot.

 

It isn't a coincidence that soccer/football is the most popular sport in the world - because a huge variety of body types and sizes can play the game at a high level.

 

With the time and costs associated with golf, the game already has enough hurdles. Let's not get to the point where people believe you have to be 6'5, 220, and ripped to play the game.

 

 

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

I’ll respectfully disagree. I played basketball for the majority of my life and even as a youngster I knew I didn’t have what it takes to make it to the NBA. I played anyway because I was marginally good, enjoyed the competition and had fun with my friends.

I see where you are coming from but I really don’t think most youngsters play sports because they think they are going to play professionally. I just don’t see it that way. I grew up playing sports and grew up around other kids playing sports. We played because it was fun.

[jholz]

It isn't about going pro, necessarily, but rather seeing someone else like yourself participating in an activity. Pros just happen to be the most widely accessible examples. Additionally, when dealing with large socio-cultural trends such as this, there are always exceptions - people who go against the predominant grain, so to speak. Their existence does not invalidate the general principle.

 

It's highly similar to smoking, in fact. It's always possible to find someone who has smoked a pack a day their entire lives and dies of unrelated causes at 90 or something. That doesn't mean that smoking isn't generally bad for people and causes a certain percentage to die.

 

Secondly, I don't know of many smokers who would say that they started the habit because the saw someone smoking in a movie or TV show. Yet, isn't it interesting how smoking rates have dropped because we've become more careful in how we present it and limited its presentation in media?

 

Again, these are really complex things. I don't claim to have all the answers and you are free to disagree all day long.

[ebrasmus21]

I think you’re stretching out pretty thin here.

i don’t know how to fix the perceived distance problem in golf. Making golf balls fly shorter distances is somehow going to grow the game? A bridge too far for me.

If golf survives another generation I suspect it’ll be because kids have fun playing and it’s at least marginally affordable.

[GeorgeHWB]

I believe soccer/football is the most popular sport in the world because the barrier to entry to play is extremely low. All you need is a ball (or some facsimile of a ball). This allows people of every economic class in every country to play as much as they want.