distance debate

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually that isn't true.  Approach shots are most important followed by driving and then putting.

 

I stand corrected. Of course ‘approach’ includes wedge play, take that out is ‘approach’ still as significant as driving/putting? 

[Soloman1]

Let's add some real risk reward while throttling distance off the tee, like alligator, hornets and snake-filled waste areas starting 280 yards from tee boxes. No penalty, but take your chances. Great for TV. "Let's check out the gator cam..."

 

Or string giant nets across the fairways about 10' off the ground so you have to hit a stinger or hit the net.

 

When I lived in Japan, I played at plenty of courses that throttled driving distance by having giant, Godzilla-sized trees in the middle of the fairway. Too close and you couldn't carrying it, too far and you couldn't carry it and you had to play slinging hooks or slices either way to get near the green.

[amace04]

4 minutes ago, Duct Tape said:

It would be nice if the USGA/R&A could standardize the ridiculous iron lofts since we’re now told “XYZ”  is hitting a gap wedge when it’s really an 8 iron, but that’s not really a distance issue affecting the golf course.  

 

Who cares?

 

If I want to hit a 27 degree club and call it a 7i, why does it matter?

If the USGA said "All 7 irons must be between 31 and 35 degrees", then I just call it a 5 iron.

Instead of 3-irons, you'll see 1 irons again at the exact same loft.

 

You're preaching the USGA have a hand in far too much here.  What's next? They start dictating the flight windows each club must use?  Restricting side-spin?  A guy who can sharply cut a drive around a big dogleg has a clear advantage.  Should that be eliminated from the game?

 

The gripes about iron lofts make even less sense than complaining about driver distance.

[milesgiles]

6 minutes ago, Duct Tape said:

First time I played it, it was in a fog so dense you couldn’t even see the bailout spot, much less the green. Not knowing then I’d eventually have other chances to come back, (and thinking who lays up here?), I nutted a slightly-smiled balata ball with my Eye-O-Matic.  Never found it. 
 

There was a brief moment when I did walk on the green and glance into the cup, just wishing…

 

I really don’t miss those equipment days. The larger club faces and better balls are nice. And it’s a fact, as someone else mentioned here, that I’m just as long at 64 as I was 20+ years ago with my BB War Bird and way longer than as a 20 y/o with balata and persimmon.  And no one, esp my wife, would confuse my current physique with the earlier models 🙂  

 

To me the easiest way to fix it now is further shorten the drivers and limit, or ideally make smaller, the driver heads. Same thing with fairway and hybrid woods. It would be nice if the USGA/R&A could standardize the ridiculous iron lofts since we’re now told “XYZ”  is hitting a gap wedge when it’s really an 8 iron, but that’s not really a distance issue affecting the golf course.  The bifurcated ball rule might work but I’d prefer to keep one set of rules. It’s not clear how you would draw the line b/w pros and good amateurs (who would likely prefer to play the same game).
 

Regarding courses, I love the old courses and am not a fan of adding bunkers just for one event which may only happen every 5-10 years. I wonder what the members of a course like Riviera which is played every year think about some greens committee or well-meaning Open Doctor adding bunkers which don’t come into play 51 weeks a year.  Start with the equipment first.

 

Treat an amateur in a gross competition the same as the pro’s. Everyone else use whatever (they do anyway)

[amace04]

15 minutes ago, gvogel said:

So if we are going to have completely different courses for pros/elites, why not have them restricted to different equipment as well?

They're already completely different.

Do you think Torrey Pines on your standard Tuesday is anywhere near as difficult as Torrey Pines in US Open configuration?

[milesgiles]

4 minutes ago, amace04 said:

His season-long driving distance is 304.  Slightly above average, but not anywhere near what I'd call a "long" hitter.

 

The point is, distance clearly isn't an issue there.  A guy won playing below-average distance off the tee.  The course is set up in a way where you don't need to be super long, and some holes it penalizes you harshly if you're off line and long. 

 

Driving well certainly provides an advantage, but you still need to play well at the other facets of your game.  Neiman did that, and he won.

 

So again, I repeat.  Where exactly is the "Distance problem".

 

 

 

I mean without repeating myself.. remember what tournament courses have had to do in the last twenty years to remain relevant. That’s ‘the distance problem’

 

( I can think of a dozen historic uk courses that can’t now be used at all for the regular tour as there is no space to expand. The Old course itself now has two tees on a different golf course altogether)

[Bye]

I guess some of it comes down to what people want to see. Personally I find golf on TV less interesting now as it a bunch of guys trying to smash it as hard as they can. 

 

IMO the most interesting players to watch have always been the most skilful. Much of the craft of the game is getting forgotten, which is sad.  

[amace04]

13 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I mean without repeating myself.. remember what tournament courses have had to do in the last twenty years to remain relevant. That’s ‘the distance problem’

 

( I can think of a dozen historic uk courses that can’t now be used at all for the regular tour as there is no space to expand. The Old course itself now has two tees on a different golf course altogether)

So the problem is a 400 year old course is becoming too short for the very upper echelon of players?

That sounds like bad course design, not a problem.

 

The local course in my city can't be used on tour either, it's only 2900 yards (9 hole course) with no reasonable room to lengthen it.   

[Pastit]

32 minutes ago, amace04 said:

His season-long driving distance is 304.  Slightly above average, but not anywhere near what I'd call a "long" hitter.

 

The point is, distance clearly isn't an issue there.  A guy won playing below-average distance off the tee.  The course is set up in a way where you don't need to be super long, and some holes it penalizes you harshly if you're off line and long. 

 

Driving well certainly provides an advantage, but you still need to play well at the other facets of your game.  Neiman did that, and he won.

 

So again, I repeat.  Where exactly is the "Distance problem".

 

 

I can refer you to a Mr S Snead’s results - still GOAT or tied GOAT ? Was the other GOAT a short hitter ? There’s c 170 PGA wins for those two. I rest my case, 

 

ps Oh, I forgot, there’s 3 GOATS - so that’s c 250 victories with a guy name Jack hitting persimmon through the 18th green at the R & A.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Pastit

[dugue4]

I have read the entire thread and tried to avoid posting because I have not watched pro golf until recently, but I'm really bored at work so here it goes.  I think there needs to be some balance because the players that have put in the effort to become stronger should not be hurt with a rule change.  But on the other hand, equipment advances that don't punish mishits as much as it use to is a problem.  I like that baseball for example, you can compare players across eras because the equipment has not changes (too much - dead ball era).  The record breaking HR and K totals are a result of the players improving/changing the game, not the equipment.  No one would ever think of using a persimmon driver on tour today, so comparing driving statistics across eras is out the window.  And not only is the equipment longer, it doesn't punish off center strikes near as much so the risk/reward becomes risk/reward.  

 

As far as what should be done, its hard to say.  Its hard to say to an OEM, "make your product worse."  However, it would be nice to see some of the pros consider laying up more often.

[milesgiles]

19 minutes ago, Pastit said:

I can refer you to a Mr S Snead’s results - still GOAT or tied GOAT ? Was the other GOAT a short hitter ? There’s c 170 PGA wins for those two. I rest my case, 

 

ps Oh, I forgot, there’s 3 GOATS - so that’s c 250 victories with a guy name Jack hitting persimmon through the 18th green at the R & A.

 

What is the case you are resting you’ve lost me 

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, amace04 said:

So the problem is a 400 year old course is becoming too short for the very upper echelon of players?

That sounds like bad course design, not a problem.

 

The local course in my city can't be used on tour either, it's only 2900 yards (9 hole course) with no reasonable room to lengthen it.   

 

Ok 

[Pastit]

4 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

What is the case you are resting you’ve lost me 

Apols I went in v the wrong post. Thanks for telling me. Excuse -flu. 

[ThinkingPlus]

50 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

I stand corrected. Of course ‘approach’ includes wedge play, take that out is ‘approach’ still as significant as driving/putting? 

The club doesn't matter; approach shots are approach shots.  Proximity to the hole is proportional to shot distance.  Wedges aren't special clubs that pros hit dramatically better than a 7 iron.  Dispersion is an angular quantity.

[dmecca2]

32 minutes ago, Bye said:

I guess some of it comes down to what people want to see. Personally I find golf on TV less interesting now as it a bunch of guys trying to smash it as hard as they can. 

 

IMO the most interesting players to watch have always been the most skilful. Much of the craft of the game is getting forgotten, which is sad.  

 

Without trying to be too harsh, so what? The courses of old need to be just that. Of old. If the course can adapt then it can stay relevant. New, better courses will sprout and the game will be better for it.

[amace04]

10 minutes ago, dugue4 said:

However, it would be nice to see some of the pros consider laying up more often.

 

I just can't support this thought process.

I'd far rather see a pro thread the needle and make a crazy good shot than see someone hit a 9i layup from 230 out. I can do that.  Layups are for basketball

[amace04]

9 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

 

Without trying to be too harsh, so what? The courses of old need to be just that. Of old. If the course can adapt then it can stay relevant. New, better courses will sprout and the game will be better for it.

Exactly.  Getting hung up on old courses designed for hickory clubs is holding the sport back.

 

There are thousands and thousands of incredible courses in the world.  Why do we need to cater to a handful of ancient ones?

[gvogel]

2 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Exactly.  Getting hung up on old courses designed for hickory clubs is holding the sport back.

 

There are thousands and thousands of incredible courses in the world.  Why do we need to cater to a handful of ancient ones?

I, for one, think that it is special that baseball can still be played at Wrigley Field or Fenway Park.  If pro baseball had gone to metal bats, that would not be possible.  I really enjoy professional golf at historic golf courses; it's a shame that Riviera or Pebble Beach lack the difficulty that was inherent before metal woods.

[amace04]

A month ago Hikeki hit an absolute dart of a 3w from 277 to within 3 feet, then drained his eagle to win the Sony Open in a playoff.

 

Shots like that are exciting.  Yeah, he could probably layup, then go up and down for a bird and to push the playoffs to another hole, but watching shots like that is what makes golf exciting.

If you don't like those kind of moments, you just don't like fun.  Go watch bowling where nothing's changed in years.

[dugue4]

12 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

I just can't support this thought process.

I'd far rather see a pro thread the needle and make a crazy good shot than see someone hit a 9i layup from 230 out. I can do that.  Layups are for basketball

By consider I mean they have to think about bogey, double bogey or worse if they don’t thread the needle.  It’s more exciting when they do something great if them failing at greatness was more punitive. 

[ChipStrokes]

5 minutes ago, amace04 said:

If you don't like those kind of moments, you just don't like fun.  Go watch bowling where nothing's changed in years.

hey man, bowling is an absolute electric factory

 

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?!  I AM!!

 

 

 

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, dugue4 said:

It’s more exciting when they do something great if them failing at greatness was more punitive. 

so you want them to have worse short games?

 

if i’ve got the gist of things here, those in favor of rolling the distance back want:

 

shorter drives, longer approaches, and pros to be worse around the greens. 

 

sounds like you all just want to watch your buddies play on tv. why not just go park a chair along the fairway at your local club and watch people stink it up for free?

[amace04]

2 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I, for one, think that it is special that baseball can still be played at Wrigley Field or Fenway Park.  If pro baseball had gone to metal bats, that would not be possible.  I really enjoy professional golf at historic golf courses; it's a shame that Riviera or Pebble Beach lack the difficulty that was inherent before metal woods.

 

That's because they built stadiums that are still playable in today's MLB.  But don't forget, Fenway park when it was built looked nothing like it does today.  Even in the 30s when the Red Sox moved in, it was very different.  They still played football there.  

Would you think the same thing if they still played at the Polo Grounds?  

 

 

There's a reason that the Dodgers don't play in the LA Coliseum anymore.

 

 

At the end of the day, Fenway in the 2020s is a dump.  Yes, it's historical, and any serious baseball fan should aspire to go there at least once, but they made that ballpark fit the sport of Baseball, while many are suggesting making the sport of Golf fit some 400 year old courses in England.

 

 

[amace04]

3 minutes ago, dugue4 said:

By consider I mean they have to think about bogey, double bogey or worse if they don’t thread the needle.  It’s more exciting when they do something great if them failing at greatness was more punitive. 

Sure, so make alterations to the layout of the course.  Adjust the course to adapt to an evolving game.  Don't adapt the game and equipment to fit bad course design.

[puttingmatt]

Never understood the distance debate,

Set up the course or any given hole that takes out the driver, ( bunkers, ponds and  waste areas around from 300 yards to 350 yards. Let the design make up the risk and reward if you hit it far enough. And yes, anyone can build defensive holes on a course . Put a premium on course management for lower scores.

Edited February 24, 2022 by puttingmatt

[dugue4]

13 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

so you want them to have worse short games?

 

if i’ve got the gist of things here, those in favor of rolling the distance back want:

 

shorter drives, longer approaches, and pros to be worse around the greens. 

 

sounds like you all just want to watch your buddies play on tv. why not just go park a chair along the fairway at your local club and watch people stink it up for free?

Straw man

[Pastit]

24 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

That's because they built stadiums that are still playable in today's MLB.  But don't forget, Fenway park when it was built looked nothing like it does today.  Even in the 30s when the Red Sox moved in, it was very different.  They still played football there.  

Would you think the same thing if they still played at the Polo Grounds?  

 

 

There's a reason that the Dodgers don't play in the LA Coliseum anymore.

 

 

At the end of the day, Fenway in the 2020s is a dump.  Yes, it's historical, and any serious baseball fan should aspire to go there at least once, but they made that ballpark fit the sport of Baseball, while many are suggesting making the sport of Golf fit some 400 year old courses in England.

 

 

Sam Snead’s reaction on first seeing the R & A was to ask if construction was finished. The value of the argument of old courses being obsolete can be gauged from the number of USA winners of the Open in modern time upon our old links. Sam never returned but the travel was rather ify in those days.  

Edited February 24, 2022 by Pastit

[oikos1]

35 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

I just can't support this thought process.

I'd far rather see a pro thread the needle and make a crazy good shot than see someone hit a 9i layup from 230 out. I can do that.  Layups are for basketball

Bingo.  Golf is entertainment.  Fans want to see spectacular shots.  Lay up after lay up?  Yeah, that will sell tickets. 😂

 

What fans really want to see is more risk/reward opportunities on the course, not necessarily distance for the sake of distance.  OEM manufactures want -30 scores.  And that's why The PGA Tour has fast fairways, low risk shots and winners at -20 and above.  The PGA Tour is the distance problem.  Period.

[amace04]

13 minutes ago, puttingmatt said:

Never understood the distance debate,

Set up the course or any given hole that takes out the driver, ( bunkers, ponds and  waste areas around from 300 yards to 350 yards. Let the design make up the risk and reward if you hit it far enough. And yes, anyone can build defensive holes on a course . Put a premium on course management for lower scores.

 

They don't do it, because they don't actually want to curb distance.

They talk about it and make rule amendments (such as the 48" -> 46" driver change) which ultimately doesn't change much.

 

Some bitter jealous old men will complain about distance, say they're sick of watching Driver/Wedge every hole (which actually doesn't happen all that often), then pine for the old days and talk about how Nicklaus was the best ever.

Fans like seeing long drives.  Watching Bryson carry the entire pond at Bay Hill, or drive it 417 and end up only 72 yards out on a Par 5 in the Ryder Cup because he can make a forced carry is fun golf.

[farmer]

I have an old Maltby book from 1974.  Titleist (Acushnet) standard lofts were  built off a 50* PW, then went down in 4* increments, so a 47* 9 iron etc.  If the chart someone posted way back is accurate, DJ is playing a 47* PW, so about a one club difference by loft.  Again, if the USGA forces the OEM's to nerf the ball, even by a small percentage, the paid-to-play folks are still going to get paid, they will not pay any of the R&D costs, the OEM's will not just eat that cost, so the costs are offloaded onto the recreational player.  If the elite are 10-15 yards shorter, what has been gained?