distance debate

[clevited]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

professionals are still getting longer. this feeds through once you equalise for age and ability 

 

Professional average will climb until it doesn't.  Meaning, the amount of bombers with all the other skills will continue to rise to the top on the tour and less and less short knockers will be on the tour.  The average I don't think will ever get to the current max average that guys like Bryson, Champ, Rory, DJ, Bubba, and others have been at over the years (roughly 315ish give or take 5 yards roughly).  Now if suddenly the tour starts playing wide open, REALLY long course then you will see that average climb more because going after one will more often be a smart play.  If the tour continues to play the same mix of courses and said courses don't keep lengthening, then that average really won't ever get above that current max average.  

 

I will reiterate, there is a limit to how helpful distance is off the tee.  It depends on the type of course and conditions.  For the most part, a guy that can hit it 300 total, isn't at much of a disadvantage over the guy that can hit it 340 except for certain circumstances off the tee.  Often, the 340 guy can't safely hit it 340 no matter how accurate he is.  I cannot pound this into peoples heads enough...a short driver of the ball can get it wrong and remain in play or out of trouble, a long driver cannot get it wrong and remain in play or stay out of trouble.  Therefore the long driver has to be even more precise more frequently than not.  There is so much naivety in the roll back crowd unless you happen to have the physicals talent to hit the ball a long ways and experience the challenge that it is to utilize that skill.  How many times have we seen the bomber hit a perfect drive 60 yards further than who they are playing against yet still fail to score better?  Golf is hard.

[milesgiles]

2 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Professional average will climb until it doesn't.  Meaning, the amount of bombers with all the other skills will continue to rise to the top on the tour and less and less short knockers will be on the tour.  The average I don't think will ever get to the current max average that guys like Bryson, Champ, Rory, DJ, Bubba, and others have been at over the years (roughly 315ish give or take 5 yards roughly).  Now if suddenly the tour starts playing wide open, REALLY long course then you will see that average climb more because going after one will more often be a smart play.  If the tour continues to play the same mix of courses and said courses don't keep lengthening, then that average really won't ever get above that current max average.  

 

I will reiterate, there is a limit to how helpful distance is off the tee.  It depends on the type of course and conditions.  For the most part, a guy that can hit it 300 total, isn't at much of a disadvantage over the guy that can hit it 340 except for certain circumstances off the tee.  Often, the 340 guy can't safely hit it 340 no matter how accurate he is.  I cannot pound this into peoples heads enough...a short driver of the ball can get it wrong and remain in play or out of trouble, a long driver cannot get it wrong and remain in play or stay out of trouble.  Therefore the long driver has to be even more precise more frequently than not.  There is so much naivety in the roll back crowd unless you happen to have the physicals talent to hit the ball a long ways and experience the challenge that it is to utilize that skill.  How many times have we seen the bomber hit a perfect drive 60 yards further than who they are playing against yet still fail to score better?  Golf is hard.

 

they thought all of this 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 30 years ago. And were wrong.

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

the young players have barely more than an 8 iron on any hole on my 6500 course.. including the par 5s. Ive never seen the fully grown tree they cant hit over 

 

Clearly the tree isn't close enough and to the bolded I say, so what???

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

what?

equipment isn’t longer now than it was 10 years ago. 

 

if they’re getting longer it’s through other avenues. 

 

and the average distance is longer because more guys are longer, not because the longest are pulling the average up. 

 

hank keune led the tour at 321 in 2003. bryson led the tour at 323 in 2021. 

 

the longest on tour have stalled out because like @clevited has been trying to tell you, there’s a diminishing return on the distance advantage when you get past that magical 320 number. 

[milesgiles]

1 minute ago, ChipStrokes said:

equipment isn’t longer now than it was 10 years ago. 

 

if they’re getting longer it’s through other avenues. 

 

and the average distance is longer because more guys are longer, not because the longest are pulling the average up. 

 

hank keune led the tour at 321 in 2003. bryson led the tour at 323 in 2021. 

 

the longest on tour have stalled out because like @clevited has been trying to tell you, there’s a diminishing return on the distance advantage when you get past that magical 320 number. 

 

keuhne couldnt play, so its not a valid comparison.

 

SG says there is an advantage, its just that not many other than peak Bryson have been able to hit it 340 straight. As drivers get more forgiving, they will be able to.

 

where is the data that says there is a diminishing return on distance?

[klebs01]

16 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Sure there is.  They have to keep up with the course down the road when they do something new and shiny to their course.  Golf is a business.  Length isn't NEEDED.  Let me repeat, length isn't NEEDED.  It is marketing crap, a keep up with the Joneses thing, an elitist thing.  It isn't absolutely unnecessary at all.  

 

If courses are losing business, it is more often (at least around here) because they aren't drawing as many people due to a generation of golfers dying, and the following generation losing interest.  There was a big golf boon for a while, but it had died down over the years.  Golf courses were an in thing for quite a while in my state when Tiger hit the scene.  Renewed interest does that.  When golf is already not as popular for younger generation, it isn't smart to suddenly take away one of the coolest and younger gen attracting things about it which is bombs off the tee.  The game doesn't need crap like that right now, nor does it ever in my opinion.  The game is incredibly hard, it always has been and always will be.  Don't make it any harder to get into.

 

Innovation is better than following the sheep of course lengthening imo.  Make golf cool, make it more inclusive to a younger generation if you want to foster future growth.  Top golf has been a great thing for example.  Some golf courses have created soccer golf as an alternative (maybe kids will try out the real golf after those experiences).  Courses can always make things more difficult or challenging by tweaking it without adding length.  It all costs money, and I think its smarter to work with what you have rather than try and buy up more land and then complain about the costs to water and mow it all.  Around here, the trees live for hundreds of years and grow tall.  They prevent a lot of corner cutting.  If however those trees die, or blow down in a storm, well, the course has to deal with that and that is part of running a golf course.  Their design intent has changed and they have to just roll with the punches or spend a crap ton of money to "do something" about it.  

 

Do you find your short home courses too easy?  You aren't short I don't think.  I have seen you saying you have worked on speed and gained a significant amount I thought.  So again, are your home courses too easy for you or are you just complaining because the younger generation isn't playing the game "right" in your eyes?   The game is still played and in the manner it was intended which was to get the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.  Some people have the talent to simplify the game more than others and thus score better on average.  Others don't.  

 

 

Yes. I find my home course a bit on the too easy side. I don’t have more than a wedge into any par four. It really plays as a par 69, actual par is 70 one par 5 is 8i-6i approach.  We just approved a master plan that could push it to about 6600y but will still probably play as par 69. This isn’t just me.
 

At my first club that had more younger members pushed the tees back as much as they could. It was tight and tree lined. Doesn’t change the strategy. Still pull driver. Just punch out and make par or bogey if it ends up in the trees.  Out of the 20% or so of members that were under 40. I can only think of one or two that didn’t average 280+ off the tee. Every hole ends up driver wedge. Trees don’t change that. They hurt high caps a lot more. 

[klebs01]

23 minutes ago, clevited said:double post

Edited April 19, 2022 by klebs01

[clevited]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

keuhne couldnt play, so its not a valid comparison.

 

SG says there is an advantage, its just that not many other than peak Bryson have been able to hit it 340 straight. As drivers get more forgiving, they will be able to.

 

where is the data that says there is a diminishing return on distance?

 

The data source is called common sense.  

 

No drivers are not going to be more forgiving to any appreciable degree.  Golfers may get more talented though and make it look like its easy, I will give you that.

[ChipStrokes]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

keuhne couldnt play, so its not a valid comparison.

 

SG says there is an advantage, its just that not many other than peak Bryson have been able to hit it 340 straight. As drivers get more forgiving, they will be able to.

 

where is the data that says there is a diminishing return on distance?

the data is right in front of you. do you think cam champ only has 315 yards on tap? 

 

they hit it as far as is advantageous.  it’s been steadily at 315-320 yards for 20+ years. 

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Yes. I find my home course a bit on the too easy side. I don’t have more than a wedge into any par four. It really plays as a par 69, actual par is 70 one par 5 is 8i-6i approach.  We just approved a master plan that could push it to about 6600y but will still probably play as par 69. This isn’t just me.
 

At my first club that had more younger members pushed the tees back as much as they could. It was tight and tree lined. Doesn’t change the strategy. Still pull driver. Just punch out and make par or bogey if it ends up in the trees.  Out of the 20% or so of members that were under 40. I can only think of one or two that didn’t average 280+ off the tee. Every hole ends up driver wedge. Trees don’t change that. They hurt high caps a lot more. 

 

Ok so the course punishes bad drives that is good.  A person frequently chooses a driver off the tee is bad because????  Last I heard, it is up to the player to determine how they tackle a course, not the designer or owners.  If its so easy, do you have the course record?  You ever think if you want to make it harder for yourself and get more practice with clubs you don't play much that you play a variety of courses, and or switch things up on a course for the sake of variety?  I like to do challenges with my buddy where we play a few holes 7i only, putt with wedges, or even driver only (now that is HARD).  Still absolutely no need to lengthen the course, after all you still play it, so it has to still be fun and challenging enough.

[gvogel]

15 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

equipment isn’t longer now than it was 10 years ago. 

 

if they’re getting longer it’s through other avenues. 

 

and the average distance is longer because more guys are longer, not because the longest are pulling the average up. 

 

hank keune led the tour at 321 in 2003. bryson led the tour at 323 in 2021. 

 

the longest on tour have stalled out because like @clevited has been trying to tell you, there’s a diminishing return on the distance advantage when you get past that magical 320 number. 

The problem isn't that the equipment isn't longer now than it was 10 years ago, although I suspect that it has been refined to lessen spin off the driver;  the problem is what happened when titanium was introduced to the game.  Titanium resulted in an explosion of club head size, and hotter faces.

 

As a matter of fact, since titanium heads are cast in China, I think it would be best for the game if club heads had to be steel or wood.  Steel would be fine; at least there would be no advantage to getting the perfect persimmon head.

[SlothofDespond]

1 hour ago, ChipStrokes said:

equipment rules will kill the golf industry in their efforts to “preserve the integrity of the game”

 

if you freeze things where they are, pros are tapped out distance wise. they’ll continue to try and eek out a yard or two via strength training, perfecting launch conditions, etc, but they’ll pretty much stagnate. 

 

but your average golfer, your consumer, wants to buy a new driver every year to “gain 15 yards”.  those guys will likely stop playing if equipment is rolled back or there’s no more magic bullet to buy. 

 

I'm not so sure average golfers will stop playing if equipment stagnates. I would expect equipment sales to decline though. Why buy a new driver that is only as good as an older driver?

 

We might see players move away from the game if equipment gets worse though. Telling the average golfer to play equipment that hits the ball shorter distances or is somehow less accurate doesn't feel like it will be well-received.

 

I grew up on 90s/00s era equipment and have zero desire to move backwards technologically, but I also don't play any competitive golf. I wish the powers would just bifurcate already and leave us casual players alone.

[ChipStrokes]

14 minutes ago, SlothofDespond said:

I'm not so sure average golfers will stop playing if equipment stagnates. I would expect equipment sales to decline though. Why buy a new driver that is only as good as an older driver?

there are a lot of guys who like to play “golf clubs” rather than play golf. 

 

you can find a lot of them on here. for a large subsection of golfers, the enjoyment of the game comes in buying, trying, and chasing down the shiny new club. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[milesgiles]

28 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Clearly the tree isn't close enough and to the bolded I say, so what???

 

Because i want to see who is the best with 14 clubs, not 6

[milesgiles]

4 minutes ago, SlothofDespond said:

 

I'm not so sure average golfers will stop playing if equipment stagnates. I would expect equipment sales to decline though. Why buy a new driver that is only as good as an older driver?

 

We might see players move away from the game if equipment gets worse though. Telling the average golfer to play equipment that hits the ball shorter distances or is somehow less accurate doesn't feel like it will be well-received.

 

I grew up on 90s/00s era equipment and have zero desire to move backwards technologically, but I also don't play any competitive golf. I wish the powers would just bifurcate already and leave us casual players alone.

 

Agree. I’m not for taking toasters off the duffers, but everyone else should have a bit more pride and man up 

[Scooby555]

I say feed them all steroids and RedBulls.  Give them the hottest clubs possible.  Then the "get in the hole" guy might be useful.

[milesgiles]

16 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

the data is right in front of you. do you think cam champ only has 315 yards on tap? 

 

they hit it as far as is advantageous.  it’s been steadily at 315-320 yards for 20+ years. 

 

He only has 315 STRAIGHT. If you don’t think the coming generations will have 330,340,350 STRAIGHT, you’re in a world of your own 

[gvogel]

5 minutes ago, SlothofDespond said:

 

I'm not so sure average golfers will stop playing if equipment stagnates. I would expect equipment sales to decline though. Why buy a new driver that is only as good as an older driver?

 

We might see players move away from the game if equipment gets worse though. Telling the average golfer to play equipment that hits the ball shorter distances or is somehow less accurate doesn't feel like it will be well-received.

 

I grew up on 90s/00s era equipment and have zero desire to move backwards technologically, but I also don't play any competitive golf. I wish the powers would just bifurcate already and leave us casual players alone.

This is an argument about highly skilled golfers who would play with different equipment governed by a local rule.

 

I believe that I read that the USGA was also considering allowing longer equipment, hotter balls, for the rest of us.

 

Well, if you want to play what the pros play, you would be restricted.  But that would not be the recommendation from the governing bodies.

[oikos1]

38 minutes ago, clevited said:

How many times have we seen the bomber hit a perfect drive 60 yards further than who they are playing against yet still fail to score better?

Happens all of the time here in the U.S.  Apparently not so much across the pond. 

[milesgiles]

20 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

The data source is called common sense.  

 

 

 

Personally, your version of common sense isn’t for me

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, milesgiles said:

 

He only has 315 STRAIGHT. If you don’t think the coming generations will have 330,340,350 STRAIGHT, you’re in a world of your own 

no, he absolutely doesn’t. he has well more than that on tap. 

 

so does finau, luke list, cam young, bryson, dj, etc…

 

they drive the ball as far as they NEED to in order to shoot the lowest score. 

[gvogel]

1 minute ago, ChipStrokes said:

no, he absolutely doesn’t. he has well more than that on tap. 

 

so does finau, luke list, cam young, bryson, dj, etc…

 

they drive the ball as far as they NEED to in order to shoot the lowest score. 

Is that any different than Nicklaus, Weiskopf and Watson played?

[ChipStrokes]

Just now, gvogel said:

Is that any different than Nicklaus, Weiskopf and Watson played?

no.  that’s my point. 

 

it wasn’t a problem then and it isn’t now. 

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, SlothofDespond said:

 

I'm not so sure average golfers will stop playing if equipment stagnates. I would expect equipment sales to decline though. Why buy a new driver that is only as good as an older driver?

 

We might see players move away from the game if equipment gets worse though. Telling the average golfer to play equipment that hits the ball shorter distances or is somehow less accurate doesn't feel like it will be well-received.

 

I grew up on 90s/00s era equipment and have zero desire to move backwards technologically, but I also don't play any competitive golf. I wish the powers would just bifurcate already and leave us casual players alone.

 

Great post imo.  I personally think technology has been practically stagnant for quite a long time (driver wise) but people are easily duped by the marketing.  I think that will continue unless something crazy comes along and the USGA are too slow to catch it.  I am all for the RBs to be vigilant on new trends in technology and I have mentioned examples of this many times in these threads.  They should have been preventing the following (but they have not, but I don't think it is quite too late).

 

Two examples I have mentioned over the years.

-Limit shaft weight

-Not allow hollow headed irons

 

As far as bifurcation, I don't agree.  They should just leave the game as it is, full stop.  The courses these guys play on tour generally have plenty of money to do whatever they want whenever they want to make the scores as they see fit.  It doesn't and shouldn't effect any other courses because the masses do not hit it nearly as far as the pros.

 

 

 

[ChipStrokes]

11 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Because i want to see who is the best with 14 clubs, not 6

so play with 6. no one is stopping you. 

[smashdn]

32 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

The data source is called common sense.  

 

No drivers are not going to be more forgiving to any appreciable degree.  Golfers may get more talented though and make it look like its easy, I will give you that.

 

How do you know this to be true?

[oikos1]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

He only has 315 STRAIGHT. If you don’t think the coming generations will have 330,340,350 STRAIGHT, you’re in a world of your own 

Accuracy has always suffered at the expense of distance since the beginning of the game and hasn't changed since.

 

[clevited]

8 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Personally, your version of common sense isn’t for me

 

Common sense is common sense, some have it some don't.  Helps if you seek information outside of your reaffirming bubble.  

 

Let me put it this way, you can trust that this particular version of common sense is the correct version. If I thought you weren't so disingenuous of a person, I would make a big post gathering as much of this common sense as possible to show you why it is common sense.  Unfortunately, that would be a big waste of time though.  If anyone else that isn't disingenuous is curious about that though, and would like to see why it is common sense that distance has diminishing returns, please let me know.  I would be happy to take the time to share with such a person. 

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

How do you know this to be true?

 

I don't necessary KNOW this to be true, but I am extremely confident it is, lets just say that.

 

This is based on the progress of driver design over the course of the past 20 years, my general obsession with the driver, my background professionally, my understanding of materials, my understanding of club design, and just experience and continued ownership of drivers spanning 40 years.

Edited April 19, 2022 by clevited

[clevited]

5 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Accuracy has always suffered at the expense of distance since the beginning of the game and hasn't changed since.

 

 

That darned wind and spin axis thing are real bummers!  Reality sucks!