distance debate

[Chunkitgood]

2 hours ago, oikos1 said:

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.

 

Strangely enough, to some of us who actually play golf, the game is a little more than the reality show series calling itself the PGA Tour.

 

It’s shame the pro game has achieved such importance in people’s minds that it seem like the rules have to be designed for them instead of the rest of us.

 

All the so-called advances in equipment tend to help expert golfers more than the common golfer, for whom the game was at least as challenging and rewarding in the old days, if provide less instant gratification. The only roll back that would hurt the vast majority would be a rollback in COG manipulation, since that is the only “advance” that really “helps”most people.

 

Perhaps that is behind the “distance is no problem” crowd: they’re afraid new equipment standards will impair their ability to get (to them) decent results from their fat shots.

[klebs01]

53 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

And a shorter shaft.  And a slower swing.  And a lower apex.

See where I'm going with this?

 

 

Then it sounds like around you, they built crappy courses.

 

If your par 5s are "Driver short iron", then that means they're sub 430?  That assumes you drive the ball reasonably well.  If you Only drive it 240 (which would be "Above average" for an amateur), and they're still a driver/short iron out, then it's just a crap course.

Or you're making things up, which I'm more inclined to believe.

 

Don't mistake your local courses being poorly designed as a reason why distance is a problem.

 

300 yard drives are routine and don’t get any attention. This isn’t sustainable. Even at the local level people are getting longer and 350y drives are starting to become more common. Courses can’t just be pushed out to 7400+ to keep up. Rolling the ball back is an easy solution and would deemphasize distance as the variances would be compressed. 

 

So what?  300 yard drives have been routine for decades.  Sinc ethe Pro-V1 was introduced, driving distance on tour has largely flattened out.  A few peaks lately due to golfers going after speed.  That's not equipment, that's humans growing and focusing on distance.

 

As for your "350y drives becoming common" comment.  The % of golfers who can drive it 350 is miniscule.  Fraction of a percent.  They're the very longest in the game, yet you think they represent a "Problem" for all of golf?  Give me a break.

You're jealous.  Just say it.  

not jealous at all. 500 yard par 5 is driver 8 iron with two good shots. It’s actually more an issue of frustration with having we’ve into almost all par fours. I wouldn’t consider Ross, Langford and Moreau, and similar courses poorly designed. As you prevented in your chart, the was a clear jump in distance starting in the 90s that’s the problem. You just proved my side. 

[amace04]

17 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

not jealous at all. 500 yard par 5 is driver 8 iron with two good shots. It’s actually more an issue of frustration with having we’ve into almost all par fours. I wouldn’t consider Ross, Langford and Moreau, and similar courses poorly designed. As you prevented in your chart, the was a clear jump in distance starting in the 90s that’s the problem. You just proved my side. 

 

 

Let me get this  straight.  Your local golf courses have 500 yard par 5s, and regularly your average joes are reaching it with a driver and 8i?

So you're confirming you're just making things up for a sensationalist story.

 

We've already established the average scratch golfer drives ~260.  So it's clear anything you type is just pure BS. 

Are there some golfers who will be able to do it?  Yes.  Is it common?  No.  

 

Just stop, you're making yourself look foolish.

 

  

17 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

 It’s actually more an issue of frustration with having we’ve into almost all par fours. 

 

If a 500 yard par 5 has become a par 4, then that means your course is poorly designed.  If a 500 yard par 5 as easily reachable in 2 as you claim, then it's just not a hard course.

This isn't a distance issue, it's a course design issue.   

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by amace04

[klebs01]

9 minutes ago, amace04 said:

 

 

Let me get this  straight.  Your local golf courses have 500 yard par 5s, and regularly your average joes are reaching it with a driver and 8i?

So you're confirming you're just making things up for a sensationalist story.

 

We've already established the average scratch golfer drives ~260.  So it's clear anything you type is just pure BS. 

Are there some golfers who will be able to do it?  Yes.  Is it common?  No.  

 

Just stop, you're making yourself look foolish.

 

  

 

If a 500 yard par 5 has become a par 4, then that means your course is poorly designed.  If a 500 yard par 5 as easily reachable in 2 as you claim, then it's just not a hard course.

This isn't a distance issue, it's a course design issue.   

 

when did I say average joe? That’s you making stuff up. I said sub-45 year old single digest. For that yes driver short iron on 500 yard hold is not uncommon. Not saying average but fairly common. 
 

no. This isn’t a design issue. It’s a distance issue. 500 yards is t a three shot hole anymore when 300+ yard drives are common. This wasn’t an issue for the first 80 years the course was open. Now it’s just another par 4. Say it’s a 6 iron instead of an 8. What’s the difference? Even with a hazard down the whole left side and other trouble it’s never a layup unless behind a tree. 

[Nard_S]

3 hours ago, amace04 said:

 

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.

You're like the guitar player from Foghat, trying to school Jimi Hendrix.

[gvogel]

I wonder if this thread will reach 60 pages....

 

It is nice to see more posters who realize that equipment could be scaled back for existing courses, as opposed to scaling up courses to reflect today's advance in distance.  We can debate that all day long - apart from those who think that all is good and wonderful in the modern game, and want no changes.  I can wait to see what the USGA comes up with in a couple of months.

[vandyfan]

19 hours ago, Santiago Golf said:

If the ball is rolled back and the course length is made slightly shorter ... then what are we solving 

 

Not having to lengthen courses continually for the next 50 years. 

[Pastit]

A wonderful solution came to mind:

 

1) MEN UNDER AGE 50: Metal woods are banned and shafts are limited to 43.5”. Heads must be wooden in the mould of Phil and Greg. Balls Ballata only.

 

2) MEN OVER 50: present gear allowed. 
 

3) Senior and main Tours combined. 
 

4) LADIES: present gear allowed but they must run between shots.

 

5) OTHER GENDERS & WOKE FOLK: Skirts compulsory. This cracks it. 

[ThinkingPlus]

51 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I wonder if this thread will reach 60 pages....

 

It is nice to see more posters who realize that equipment could be scaled back for existing courses, as opposed to scaling up courses to reflect today's advance in distance.  We can debate that all day long - apart from those who think that all is good and wonderful in the modern game, and want no changes.  I can wait to see what the USGA comes up with in a couple of months.

I imagine most everybody participating in this thread will be very disappointed.

[MUNIGRIT]

3 hours ago, gvogel said:

When players such as Tiger Woods and Patrick Cantlay acknowledge that the ball goes too far for the existing courses, there is indeed a problem.

It didn't for Tiger until he is aging and injuring up. Same goes for Jack and others who were long players until they weren't anymore so they started talking about it.

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

 

well yeah.. but the wedge approach is a given unless every par 4 is driveable. Whats the relevance of all other approaches statistically?

[milesgiles]

5 hours 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.

 

you have No soul..

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

well yeah.. but the wedge approach is a given unless every par 4 is driveable. Whats the relevance of all other approaches statistically?

Approaches are categorized by distance not club.  As far as I know such an analysis hasn't been done.

[milesgiles]

5 hours 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.

 

 

 

 

st andrews is in scotland 

[milesgiles]

4 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Is it me or are all of these proposed changes just jealousy and trying to fix something that isn't broke? Players are bigger better and faster and equipment is better. Every generation is that way.

 

if equipment hadnt changed so radically perhaps we could actually judge if players were bigger, better and faster 

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, MUNIGRIT said:

It didn't for Tiger until he is aging and injuring up. Same goes for Jack and others who were long players until they weren't anymore so they started talking about it.

 

that was absolutely not the motivation for them and others like Faldo to talk about it, since any rollback of ball or equipment would, as we all agree, likely hurt shorter players the most.

 

but then, you knew that.

[MUNIGRIT]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

if equipment hadnt changed so radically perhaps we could actually judge if players were bigger, better and faster 

It has always changed. You don't want me to point out that they played with feathered ball and hickory shafts at one point do you? You don't think the players in the 50's heard same old grumps whining about these new age guys and steel shafts? How far are we rolling the equipment back? No matter what you do the guys who are long will still be long and guys who are short will still be short. 

[manxytag]

I blame the greenkeepers, we are producing amazing playing surfaces for the best players each week.  most of the time they play in gorgeous weather with super smooth greens and fairways, of course they are going to shoot low

[MUNIGRIT]

14 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

if equipment hadnt changed so radically perhaps we could actually judge if players were bigger, better and faster 

We don't need equipment rolled back as we know more athletes are playing golf. These same guys whining about distance are also the guys that told you working out with weights was bad for your golf game. Diets and exercise is super common now especially considering purse sizes. 

[milesgiles]

4 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

 These same guys whining about distance are also the guys that told you working out with weights was bad for your golf game.  

 

 

what?

[milesgiles]

11 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

It has always changed. You don't want me to point out that they played with feathered ball and hickory shafts at one point do you? You don't think the players in the 50's heard same old grumps whining about these new age guys and steel shafts? How far are we rolling the equipment back? No matter what you do the guys who are long will still be long and guys who are short will still be short. 

 

pretty sure I told you this before, but one more time. The ONLY equipment I would personally roll back is the ridiculous 460. Its an abomination and if I was a pro Id be embarrassed to use it. Hell Im embarrassed to use it now and im a scrub.

[TiScape]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

pretty sure I told you this before, but one more time. The ONLY equipment I would personally roll back is the ridiculous 460. It’s an abomination and if I was a pro Id be embarrassed to use it. Hell I’m embarrassed to use it now and im a scrub.

Then don’t! 🤷🏼‍♂️

[milesgiles]

3 minutes ago, TiScape said:

Then don’t! 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

yeah sure I just wont play any gross competitions then 

[TiScape]

14 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

yeah sure I just wont play any gross competitions then 

 As Phil said recently (sacrifice) “for the good of the game”! 😉 
 

*being a bit ‘tongue n cheek’ here miles.

Edited February 24, 2022 by TiScape

[Titleist99]

According to some, everyone on the PGATOUR is driving the ball well over 300 yards off the tee.....yet the tournament this week is mere 7100+ yards......how are they doing it? What kind of sorcery is that?.....(sarcasm)

[MUNIGRIT]

33 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

what?

That was folklore back in the day. Lifting weights is bad for your golf swing. That was until TW. But we hear all sorts of dumb s*** like drive for show putt for dough and just need to narrow the fairways for the eliminate the bombers. Golfers are always looking for excuses and this distance argument is one of them.

[jvincent]

48 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

that was absolutely not the motivation for them and others like Faldo to talk about it, since any rollback of ball or equipment would, as we all agree, likely hurt shorter players the most.

 

but then, you knew that.

 

Disagree. Increasing the drag on the ball would affect the higher speed guys more.

[milesgiles]

1 minute ago, jvincent said:

 

Disagree. Increasing the drag on the ball would affect the higher speed guys more.

 

ive not heard any of them talk about increasing drag

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, MUNIGRIT said:

That was folklore back in the day. Lifting weights is bad for your golf swing. That was until TW. But we hear all sorts of dumb s*** like drive for show putt for dough and just need to narrow the fairways for the eliminate the bombers. Golfers are always looking for excuses and this distance argument is one of them.

 

maybe it was folklore, its nothing to do with anything

 

no kdea what any of the debate has to do with making excuses either. I dont play on tour what do I need an excuse for?

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

ive not heard any of them talk about increasing drag

Increasing drag on the ball also has the added advantage of making playing in the wind much harder.