distance debate

[ChipStrokes]

7 minutes ago, clevited said:

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.

haha i live it first hand, much like you do. 

 

amazing what happens when you leave the club face even a single degree open at 130mph

[Golferpaul]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Can the USGA mandate courses mow their fairways at a certain HOC?  Can they make equipment rule changes?

Yes, and yes, for USGA tournaments.

[Golferpaul]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

The dramatic increase in driving distance started in the mid 1990's and flattened ~2006. I'm guessing driven by the introduction and optimization of metal woods and modern ball.  So it seems the cat is already out of the bag. 

 

 

 

 

The curve flattened when the USGA introduced the 255 ft/second ball speed test in about 2004. Average driving distance is almost flat since then.  I suspect that the small increase from 2005 - 2020 has been mostly the increased physical conditioning of the players.

[Golferpaul]

26 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

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

 

It's simple geometry.  The longer a ball travels the farther off center it will go unless hit perfectly.

[Golferpaul]

Another way to look at this is the driving distance winner for the past 20 or so years.

 

[ChipStrokes]

7 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Another way to look at this is the driving distance winner for the past 20 or so years.

 

this is exactly what i’ve been trying to explain to miles for a few posts now. pretty damn flat. 

[smashdn]

40 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

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.

 

Frank Thomas knew what he knew too.

 

35 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Yes, and yes, for USGA tournaments.

 

What percentage of golf tournaments are USGA events?

 

13 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Another way to look at this is the driving distance winner for the past 20 or so years.

 

 

Do the last five years.  Or last thirty.

 

5 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

this is exactly what i’ve been trying to explain to miles for a few posts now. pretty damn flat. 

 

See above.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

18 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Another way to look at this is the driving distance winner for the past 20 or so years.

 

 

Hmm.  The plotted line for those two graphs are quite different.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Frank Thomas knew what he knew too.

 

 

What percentage of golf tournaments are USGA events?

 

 

Do the last five years.  Or last thirty.

 

 

See above.

 

That is not the point of the graph.  It is to show the useful distance on the tour.  It tends to show itself via averages.  This particular post wasn't about showing any increase in average driving distance, that is going to be going up for a long time precisely until it hits equilibrium.  That will only change if the course mix changes to longer courses, or more wide open courses.  

 

Again, Cam Champ averaged 345 on Korn Ferry tour, what does he average now?  The course mix tends to naturally limit the useful average on tour.  

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Can the USGA mandate courses mow their fairways at a certain HOC?  Can they make equipment rule changes?

The PGATOUR surely would resist this..........they have their fairway exact where they want them right now......

1.   They want to promote distance

2.   The fairways and greens look immaculate on television......

3    Short fairways promote penalty rollout

 

Fairways that roll at 11 on the stimp are good for business.

[Titleist99]

Driving distance advancement seem to correlate with Golfing popularity......Hmmmmm  (LOL!)

[smashdn]

6 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

That is not the point of the graph. 

 

The gentleman who has thanked your post has also missed the point of the graph then.

 

My point was to compare the two, see that they show the same data over a different time period (of ones choosing) and they can be made to tell a different story.  "Pretty damn flat" is not true if you look at the last five years or the last thirty instead.

 

So I ask, which is it?  Does the data support that distance is largely maxed out and flat or is it still going up?  Are guys just fine-tuning the last little bit of distance out of the technology or are they still seeing gains?

 

I am not saying that anyone cherry-picked their info on purpose, just that the time frame makes all the difference.  There are certainly plateaus within the data set.  When you focus on that time period you can say the gains are now flat.  But if you picked where there was a step-change point just the opposite would ring true.

 

We lambast USGA for doing nothing.  We lambast USGA for wanting to do something.

 

 

[clevited]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

 

The gentleman who has thanked your post has also missed the point of the graph then.

 

My point was to compare the two, see that they show the same data over a different time period (of ones choosing) and they can be made to tell a different story.  "Pretty damn flat" is not true if you look at the last five years or the last thirty instead.

 

So I ask, which is it?  Does the data support that distance is largely maxed out and flat or is it still going up?  Are guys just fine-tuning the last little bit of distance out of the technology or are they still seeing gains?

 

I am not saying that anyone cherry-picked their info on purpose, just that the time frame makes all the difference.  There are certainly plateaus within the data set.  When you focus on that time period you can say the gains are now flat.  But if you picked where there was a step-change point just the opposite would ring true.

 

We lambast USGA for doing nothing.  We lambast USGA for wanting to do something.

 

 

 

The point of the "max" distance graph is to show that there is a maximum useful distance average currently on tour and it hasn't moved for 20 years or whatever it was even as the tour average has increased slowly  Beyond that max average, or around that max average, it seems clear it isn't worth it.  As I said before, the only thing that will increase that maximum appreciably is changing course mix and or making tour courses even longer.  If that happens, these guys will have more reason to hit it closer to their physical limits.  Right now, the top guys hold back more often than not due to risk reward.

 

The average is going going to climb very slowly as is shown by the flatness of the past 20 years or so.  Baring some change as mentioned above (course mix and or lengthening appreciably the current courses), the average will flatten out and reach equilibrium.  It isn't too hard to imagine and see that. 

 

Now, this can bring in a whole other arguement that blade so often brings up.  He wants to see that natural limit gone (via what would have to be a very significant ball roll back) so that the guys that can hit it further get to use it.  It is an interesting topic to me but I see major flaws with it.  One is that now you will create a need in the sport for world long drive contenders that can also play golf decently well being more the norm.  You also bring in more injuries because they are more often having to push their physical limits in order to get back to that theoretical natural limit needed to maximize your scoring chances. You will see an even greater focus on distance overall and then the complaining again will ensue with how one dimensional golf has become and we go round and round in a circle.

 

Lastly, I think the USGA is deserving of any and all lambasting they get so.....

[Golferpaul]

43 minutes ago, smashdn said:

What percentage of golf tournaments are USGA events?

 

I have no idea.  The have events all over the country.  

 

But the PGA also can specify fairway conditions for their events.  So between the PGA and USGA that would cover almost everything except your local club events.

[Golferpaul]

44 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

 

Hmm.  The plotted line for those two graphs are quite different.

One is average on tour the other is the distance winner.

[Golferpaul]

33 minutes ago, smashdn said:

So I ask, which is it?  Does the data support that distance is largely maxed out and flat or is it still going up?  Are guys just fine-tuning the last little bit of distance out of the technology or are they still seeing gains?

 

I am not saying that anyone cherry-picked their info on purpose, just that the time frame makes all the difference.  There are certainly plateaus within the data set.  When you focus on that time period you can say the gains are now flat.  But if you picked where there was a step-change point just the opposite would ring true.

 

 

I tried to show what has happened since the USGA last took action which is since about 2004 or so.  Going back 30 years is no different than going back 100 years - it's useless.

 

I think distance will continue to go up, especially after DeChambeau won the US Open after bulking up.  College kids will follow that path.  DeChambeau clearly took distance to a new level.

 

Here are some interesting stats for the annual PGA Tour distance winners;

 

 

 

[bobfoster]

47 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

USGA can suggest mowing height I am sure, but ultimately, a course can do what it wants.  The course owners can't whine about length though if they don't leave the grass higher.

Yes - absolutely. They can make recommendations, but that's about it. For instance, they recommend hole lengths be as follows: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix F Establishing Par.htm Recommend, not require, is the operative word. 

 

Courses are simply too different, as the US has a large variety of different climate conditions - across the span of its geography, and over the course of a year. In the case of rough, I can think of some courses I've played during Texas summers where it literally might not be possible to grow 2" - 3" rough. The bentgrass and fescues that can easily make tall, punishing rough in northern states would be very difficult to grow in the hot, dry environs of Arizona, where some form of bermuda is by far the most common. Bermuda likes it hot and dry, but it is a sort of high maintenance grass that would take a lot of resources to grow to any decent height - and in fact people who use it for lawns are advised to never let it get more than 1" - 1.5" high. In fact, on a lot of Arizona courses there is no rough at all - there's just these bright green fairways, with nothing but rocky desert sand on either side, sometimes with these low *****ly shrubs and cacti native to deserts. 

 

Point is, establishing some universal HOC rule that applied to all 10,000+ courses in the US would be functionally,  logistically impossible. And completely unnecessary actually. Some - if not most - US golfers find golf itself hard enough, even on "easy" courses. And most courses know their local markets. There's four or five, around where I live, that are positively jammed, and a couple others that may well go out of business within a year or two. And the differentiation is not necessarily due to length or rough. Think its a combination of a lot of things.

 

In fact my current favorite course is not that long (maybe 6800 or so from the tips), and not particularly that hard (par 71, 69.6/128). However, it is just an interesting course. A variety of different kinds of holes, I use a lot of my clubs when I play it, and it has a half dozen great risk/reward holes. Add to that a great owner that keeps his course in very good shape, a really friendly staff, and on weekends rangers that do (firmly, but always politely) keep POP moving. Bottom line is that golf isn't just a sport, its an total experience, and I almost always walk off that course thinking "well, that was a thoroughly satisfying afternoon". 

 

So while I think it would be impossible for the USGA to impose (or really, even recommend) HOC rules, I still get the point a lot of folks here are making about the PGA Tour. Except on rare occasions, I have no fun watching someone win a tour event at -24, on a course that golfers just chew up and spit out. If I'm going to watch pro golf, I want to see those boys and girls challenged. Want to see them sweat. I want to hear pros whining in interviews about how the course was "unfairly" hard.

 

So then, not at the (broader) USGA level, but at the Tour level, I'd like to see a PGAT/LPGAT recommendation to the courses hosting events that they should aim for a cut line of at least +5 (or something), and simply leave it up to them to figure out how. There are a lot of ways, other than just adding distance, to toughen a course - make people pay dearly for mistakes - but those will vary greatly depending on local factors. 

 

Just random thoughts - it's not like something like that would ever happen ...

[Titleist99]

On 2/21/2022 at 3:14 PM, OBbogey5 said:

There were plenty of golfers on the courses with permission woods and “normal” lofted irons, and all types of golf balls in the past. And there will be golfers on the courses if these things return to that. I don’t think pros and hackers need to play different equipment (even though they will anyway, as they did 30, 40, 80 years ago). No idea why us non pros can’t get along without this ridiculous equipment. That’s a narrative the greedy golf equipment manufacturers push on us. If they stopped with the ridiculous drivers, woods, irons, and golf balls, we’d all still have a blast on the course with whatever is available to us in the bag. The ruling bodies need to govern. Then the manufacturers will produce. Then, we will all still play the game. Silly to think we won’t. 

I think that you're minimizing or neglecting the fact that the manufactures are the ones that sponsor and promote todays golf......cut into their profits and you cut into televised golf.

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

12 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I think that you're minimizing or neglecting the fact that the manufactures are the ones that sponsor and promote todays golf......cut into their profits and you cut into televised golf.

 

 

I don't think there's a single golf equipment manufacturer in the top 10 PGA Tour sponsors. But I could be wrong. 

[Titleist99]

22 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I don't think there's a single golf equipment manufacturer in the top 10 PGA Tour sponsors. But I could be wrong. 

They purchase airtime and sponsor plenty of programming on the golf channel that's for sure.

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

The point of the "max" distance graph is to show that there is a maximum useful distance average currently on tour and it hasn't moved for 20 years or whatever it was even as the tour average has increased slowly  Beyond that max average, or around that max average, it seems clear it isn't worth it. 

 

Lastly, I think the USGA is deserving of any and all lambasting they get so.....

 

I don't disagree that there may in fact be a maximum useful driving distance, I do not however, think you can make that conclusion from that graph.

 

What reason(s), regarding their action or inaction surrounding distance, are they deserving of the treatment they get?  I have my gripes as well.

[ChipStrokes]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

I do not however, think you can make that conclusion from that graph.

you can make it, though, from knowing how far the longest guys on tour can hit a ball vs how far they drive the ball during tournaments. 

 

i also don’t think it’s coincidental that the graph has stayed within a couple of yards +/- for 20 straight years (with one outlier in 2013)

[smashdn]

6 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

you can make it, though, from knowing how far the longest guys on tour can hit a ball vs how far they drive the ball during tournaments. 

 

i also don’t think it’s coincidental that the graph has stayed within a couple of yards +/- for 20 straight years (with one outlier in 2013)

You can infer motives from a graph?

[clevited]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I don't disagree that there may in fact be a maximum useful driving distance, I do not however, think you can make that conclusion from that graph.

 

What reason(s), regarding their action or inaction surrounding distance, are they deserving of the treatment they get?  I have my gripes as well.

 

That graph is really helpful data.  It has been extremely consistent and when you combine that with the fact that all of those players could hit it way, way beyond that average at will (even with the wind factored in), and the fact that Bryson, who is openly trying to push the absolute limit, isn't averaging much beyond that 315ish average over those 20 years for the max driver, I feel pretty comfortable it won't be creeping up to 350 or something.  It will only do that if they change the tour stops such that there are more really long courses and or more open/less penalizing courses.

 

USGA deserves all the backlash they get simply due to their track record.  They whine whine whine whine whine, talk about stuff, spend millions on lord knows what and then still manage to screw things up when they do anything.  Honestly, I feel more and more like the PGA tour should dictate rules of golf and the USGA should fade away and out of existence.

[clevited]

2 minutes ago, smashdn said:

You can infer motives from a graph?

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but what aren't you understanding here?

 

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, smashdn said:

You can infer motives from a graph?

no, you’re missing my point. 

 

champ was the driving leader in 2019 at 318 yards. he’s got an easy 30+ yards left in the tank. rory the same in 2019 at 319 yards. same with finau and bryson and…and… 

 

i’m not inferring anything. how far these guys can move it is common knowledge. 

 

they throttle back either to control the ball better, score better, avoid trouble, etc. the courses tend to reign in distance better than the RBs could ever hope to. 

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

no, you’re missing my point. 

 

champ was the driving leader in 2019 at 318 yards. he’s got an easy 30+ yards left in the tank. rory the same in 2019 at 319 yards. same with finau and bryson and…and… 

 

i’m not inferring anything. how far these guys can move it is common knowledge. 

 

they throttle back either to control the ball better, score better, avoid trouble, etc. the courses tend to reign in distance better than the RBs could ever hope to. 

 

Exactly, I mean, one of these guys if they want, can go out on a course and plan to just hit driver hard as they can on every par 4 and 5 and say screw score.  They could show their true average doing so but it will also show up in there score.  There just isn't a reason to do that.  There is something to be said about hitting to a yardage you are comfortable with.  Pitching out of deep rough can often net you a worse result than taking a full wedge from 150 yards.  A gust of wind can move your 8.5 to 9 second carry many more yards than you anticipated and right into the water.  You can bring other crap into play that makes a full rip with a driver less wise. Plenty of common sense things that naturally limit the longest guys.  

 

 

[bobfoster]

19 minutes ago, smashdn said:

You can infer motives from a graph?

🤣

 

 

[smashdn]

Just now, clevited said:

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but what aren't you understanding here?

 

 

I want to know how you guys are able to look at numbers or a line graph and come to the conclusion that they are what they are because there "is only so much useful distance."

 

Think about it the other way around.  The graph shows only what it shows.  Can you use that graph to prove that guys are laying back because there is only so much useful driving distance?  You are inferring something that that data set cannot show you.  It tells you what the data is, not why it is the way it is.  I would maybe grant you that you could include it as part of a larger argument as an example to assist with proving that hypothesis but not by itself.

 

Like I said, I too tend to agree that you reach a point of diminishing returns with respect to distance, with the caveat that it is because there currently does not exist a way to control that distance or get it in a way that doesn't expose you to injury or hitting the ball far offline.  I also feel that we don't know what could be coming around the corner from a technological standpoint that could mitigate or eliminate some of the current risk to the point that the extra distance is beneficial.  It isn't distance alone that is at the point of diminishing return, it is distance with respect to the risks of trying to drive it that distance.  When the risks are alleviated to the point where it is palatable they will drive it further, because there is an advantage to farther drives as a whole.  A 340 yard drive is "better" than is a 320 yard drive than is a 300 yard drive than is a 280 yard drive.  Especially in the context of your peers in the field.  

 

Maybe instead of focusing on distance, because we come around that distance is maxed out, we talk about clubhead speed.  What if there was a technological advance that could allow you swing 5-10 mph faster with driver?  Is that as far fetched to think is possible as 5-10 yards farther?  They were on the cusp of doing just that before PGA Tour capped driver length at 46 inches.  USGA got in front of that one a bit.

 

"John McPhee, professor of engineering at the University of Waterloo and a member of the Golf Digest Technical Panel, and his students have developed an optimized biomechanical/physics golf simulation that projects a six-yard gain in carry distance when an average human golfer goes from optimal launch conditions at 46 inches to optimal launch conditions at 48 inches, but his model showed a 10-yard gain in the optimals when going from 44 inches to 46 inches." https://www.golfdigest.com/story/driver-length-limit-usga-ra-news

 

There is a reason those guys aren't/weren't using the 48 inch drivers.  It was the same reason as why guys weren't using 46" driver shafts in 1990, control.  You solve the control issue you unlock the ability to use the length, you unlock more distance.

[clevited]

27 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I want to know how you guys are able to look at numbers or a line graph and come to the conclusion that they are what they are because there "is only so much useful distance."

 

Think about it the other way around.  The graph shows only what it shows.  Can you use that graph to prove that guys are laying back because there is only so much useful driving distance?  You are inferring something that that data set cannot show you.  It tells you what the data is, not why it is the way it is.  I would maybe grant you that you could include it as part of a larger argument as an example to assist with proving that hypothesis but not by itself.

 

Like I said, I too tend to agree that you reach a point of diminishing returns with respect to distance, with the caveat that it is because there currently does not exist a way to control that distance or get it in a way that doesn't expose you to injury or hitting the ball far offline.  I also feel that we don't know what could be coming around the corner from a technological standpoint that could mitigate or eliminate some of the current risk to the point that the extra distance is beneficial.  It isn't distance alone that is at the point of diminishing return, it is distance with respect to the risks of trying to drive it that distance.  When the risks are alleviated to the point where it is palatable they will drive it further, because there is an advantage to farther drives as a whole.  A 340 yard drive is "better" than is a 320 yard drive than is a 300 yard drive than is a 280 yard drive.  Especially in the context of your peers in the field.  

 

Maybe instead of focusing on distance, because we come around that distance is maxed out, we talk about clubhead speed.  What if there was a technological advance that could allow you swing 5-10 mph faster with driver?  Is that as far fetched to think is possible as 5-10 yards farther?  They were on the cusp of doing just that before PGA Tour capped driver length at 46 inches.  USGA got in front of that one a bit.

 

"John McPhee, professor of engineering at the University of Waterloo and a member of the Golf Digest Technical Panel, and his students have developed an optimized biomechanical/physics golf simulation that projects a six-yard gain in carry distance when an average human golfer goes from optimal launch conditions at 46 inches to optimal launch conditions at 48 inches, but his model showed a 10-yard gain in the optimals when going from 44 inches to 46 inches." https://www.golfdigest.com/story/driver-length-limit-usga-ra-news

 

There is a reason those guys aren't/weren't using the 48 inch drivers.  It was the same reason as why guys weren't using 46" driver shafts in 1990, control.  You solve the control issue you unlock the ability to use the length, you unlock more distance.

 

It isn't blindly from just a graph as if someone that knows nothing about golf is using it, and it alone to make some assumption.  We are all golfers here, and some of us pay attention to what tour players can physically do versus what they actually employ on the course.  We also may be long players ourselves and take from experience what we do or don't do on the course and why.  We may play with longer lower handicap players and pick their brains.  In my case, I have a borderline obsessive interest in this subject.

 

The point of saying all that is, we obviously are making educated interpretations of that graph that when you take everything I just said above into account, feels very much like complete and non arguable common sense.  

 

Edit: Just some additional material to kinda get my point across better.  Kyle Berkshire does a lot of golf vlogs in his efforts to get better at the sport.  He is an incredibly good golfer, I think he is a plus cap.  If you don't already, watch some of his videos.  Depending on the course, he hits a LOT of long irons off the tee.  He does it on purpose, because driver isn't the best play.  Kyle is extremely, extremely good.  He can swing at Bryson full speed swings and be as accurate if not more accurate.  He knows how to get maximum carry if he wants, and he can hit them low with more spin.  He can fade it, he can draw it.  He is an amazing driver of the ball yet he is taking out irons for off the tee all the time.  This is just some of what provides the interpretation of that graph the way I have interpreted it.   You have to remember though, at any time, any of these long guys could say screw it, and hit a nuked driver off every par 4 and 5 and inflate that maximum over the course of a year substantially.  I am saying that nobody does that or will do that because it just doesn't pay.  Look again at Bryson.  He is purposefully trying to use happy gilmore like tactics.  It isn't working as well as he had hoped so far but it is fun to see him try.  It is unlikely he will push it any further than he has.  He is capable of over 200mph ball speed with a stock driver but he rarely is at that. 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by clevited