distance debate

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

My point was I never said he couldn't.  I don't think I have ever typed that any PGAT simply "could not win" due to their length in any given tournament.

 

My point is that it is harder than ever to not only win, but stay near the top if you are not in the upper half of distance.  It is a change.  A change in how the game is played and a change in the importance of the "golf skills'," if you will, impact on winning.  Some things have become more important (distance), others (accuracy) are less important. 

 

Couple that with the fact that when driving it farther, accuracy inherently becomes less important because the impact of inaccuracy is less profound it is no surprise why the game has evolved to what it has.  A 150 yard approach from the rough results in less favorable outcomes than does a 130 yard approach. 

 

That being said, with the rough height they get into at a normal tournament, there gets to be a point where accuracy ceases to really matter at all provided you aren't blocked out by something.  An 80 yard shot from the rough is not a deterrent, and certainly not to the point where a guy would give up 20 yards (or more) just to ensure he keeps it in the fairway.  The reward of being closer outweighs any risk the rough can present.  Rough height is not really something I want to delve into though.

I don't think there is data to support that driving has become more important in recent times.  All that can be proven is the relative importance of driving to net score since Shotlink data became available.  Approach shot skill is still most important.

 

We can speculate about relative importance pre-Shotlink, however.  My opinion is that driving distance has always been more important than accuracy and by about the same amount as today.  I think previous generations held too closely to the hit the fairway at all costs strategy because it was the traditional thinking.  Just as the ball flight laws were wrong, so was that strategy.

 

Is absolute distance more important today? Yes.  Is the relative importance of driving distance vs. driving accuracy the same today as 30 or 40 years ago?  Maybe a bit more weighted to distance, but I don't think it is dramatic.  Have players changed strategy?  Absolutely!  Objective data tends to sway even the most closed mind when trophies and money are at stake.

[gvogel]

13 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I don't think there is data to support that driving has become more important in recent times.  All that can be proven is the relative importance of driving to net score since Shotlink data became available.  Approach shot skill is still most important.

 

We can speculate about relative importance pre-Shotlink, however.  My opinion is that driving distance has always been more important than accuracy and by about the same amount as today.  I think previous generations held too closely to the hit the fairway at all costs strategy because it was the traditional thinking.  Just as the ball flight laws were wrong, so was that strategy.

 

Is absolute distance more important today? Yes.  Is the relative importance of driving distance vs. driving accuracy the same today as 30 or 40 years ago?  Maybe a bit more weighted to distance, but I don't think it is dramatic.  Have players changed strategy?  Absolutely!  Objective data tends to sway even the most closed mind when trophies and money are at stake.

Funny comment about the ball flight laws being wrong.  The ball flight laws have always been the ball flight laws - they may have been understood differently.  A fine player intuitively understood ball flight, and how to change it.  Yes, I get it that there is a difference in the ball flight laws when hitting down with a lofted club as opposed to hitting up on the ball with a less lofted club - but pros knew what was going on by practice.

 

As far as the strategy of hitting the fairway at all costs v going for distance, I think that the best long players of the persimmon era would play for distance most all of the time unless the conditions of the hole demanded a more restrained approach.  If there was a difference, it wasn't because of the difference in shot link, it was a difference because of the penalties of a slight mis-hits with the equipment at the time.  That additional penalty of a mis-hit would have factored into the probabilities of the mostly all-out versus a more constrained approach.

[ThinkingPlus]

15 minutes ago, gvogel said:

Funny comment about the ball flight laws being wrong.  The ball flight laws have always been the ball flight laws - they may have been understood differently.  A fine player intuitively understood ball flight, and how to change it.  Yes, I get it that there is a difference in the ball flight laws when hitting down with a lofted club as opposed to hitting up on the ball with a less lofted club - but pros knew what was going on by practice.

 

As far as the strategy of hitting the fairway at all costs v going for distance, I think that the best long players of the persimmon era would play for distance most all of the time unless the conditions of the hole demanded a more restrained approach.  If there was a difference, it wasn't because of the difference in shot link, it was a difference because of the penalties of a slight mis-hits with the equipment at the time.  That additional penalty of a mis-hit would have factored into the probabilities of the mostly all-out versus a more constrained approach.

Re-phrase to the understanding of how to hit certain shots was incorrect per the ball flight laws.  The old pros knew what "feels" were necessary to hit high, low, draw, fade, etc..., but didn't necessarily know path, face, etc... .  They stated what they thought they did and were frequently wrong.

 

Agree that the poorly designed equipment impacted strategy.  The ball alone would give you pause since you never knew, except via roundness measurement between holes, when the ball was transitioning to an egg.  The incredible closeness of the horizontal CG to the hosel on the old school blades made swinging full tilt a crazy endeavor.

 

None of what I am saying here is meant to demean the players of yore or the craftmanship of the clubs.  The players did amazing things with what they had to work with.  The clubs were beautifully crafted and felt really good when struck on the sweetspot.  However, folks just didn't have the knowledge or technology to design better.  There also weren't tools available to measure swings and flight either.  It was a different era.

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

The graphs are dead in this > https://golf.com/instruction/driving/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-on-tour-anymore/ < but it also comes to the same conclusion.

 

This article totally......100% supports my position.

 

two things..

 

1. We have already said how the 460 has levelled the field out. This is not a good thing. Long, straight hitting should count for something, and it would count for a lot more with a traditional size clubhead

 

2. What about the impact on the other categories? Shorter approach clubs means firmer, quicker greens and the relative importance of putting/short game goes up.

[Simpsonia]

Again, talking about distance and comparing shots gained stats without looking at the context is incredibly misleading. Yes, distance is a big factor in modern scoring, but not because the relative distance has changed. As @clevited pointed out, relative distances between the longest in the field and the average has remained pretty consistent over the last 40 years. 

 

What changed the most in that time was the green speeds. Back in in 1963 when the US Open had greens rolling at 2.5 stimp, it didn't matter what club you hit onto the green because pretty much anything is going to stick and hold on that shag rug. It makes sense that as green speeds continued to increase, that those hitting shorter clubs in had a natural advantage in both spin and descent angle. 

 

On the modern tour, with greens that average ~12 stimp, you don't want to be hitting your 4-iron into the green not because of accuracy (pros are confident enough in their short game to go for it), but because there's almost no chance in actually holding the green, and you chance rolling off the back into a hazard (trap if you're lucky, water if you're not). 

 

Miles has already stated his desire to roll back to 3/8" long greens that roll like they did 50 years ago which makes golf nothing but a ball-striking contest because literally everyone can hold a green. I'd be curious to know what the other rollbackers think though. 

[milesgiles]

29 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Miles has already stated his desire to roll back to 3/8" long greens that roll like they did 50 years ago which makes golf nothing but a ball-striking contest because literally everyone can hold a green. I'd be curious to know what the other rollbackers think though. 

 

Do tell us where I said that

 

Or just quit making stuff up.

[Titleist99]

Just to be clear, the USGA and R&A have caps on golf balls and drivers.....

The golf balls maximum distance is 320 yards. If the ball goes beyond that a player stands the risk of having his driver tested. There's no doubt in my mind that some players are using hot drivers....whether they're gaining an unfair advantage is anybody's guess.

 

**The ball testing is done with a 360cc driver.

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

Do tell us where I said that

 

Or just quit making stuff up.

 

It was like 4 pages ago, or do you just troll so hard that you don't even bother reading posts before you reply?

 

 

 

[OrangeGravy]

9 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Well, CBS and NBC signed a deal with the PGATOUR that ends in 2030 at $700M a year. That's a 70% increase of the prior rights agreement. 2022-2030. The total of the deal I think is $7Billion (don't quote me)

This deal was stuck even though the SGL league is trying to steal the big name players.

 

They're betting on the game of golf and not any of the players.......

That increase in TVmoney is NOT driven by ratings for golf or by increased ratings I should say. Live sports in general have greater value to networks in the current climate of streaming platforms having an edge with other programming.  Live sports are just about the last viable draw for traditional TV networks.  It's really the only thing that will pull viewers away from the streaming platforms.  And now with those platforms entering the live sports realm,  the traditional networks are forced to up the anty. Golf is simply an unintended beneficiary of the current paradigm shift. 

 

Parity in non-team sports is bad for ratings. Plain and simple. Team sports are a different animal, but they even get a bump when there's an evil empire to root against. 

[Titleist99]

23 minutes ago, OrangeGravy said:

That increase in TVmoney is NOT driven by ratings for golf or by increased ratings I should say. Live sports in general have greater value to networks in the current climate of streaming platforms having an edge with other programming.  Live sports are just about the last viable draw for traditional TV networks.  It's really the only thing that will pull viewers away from the streaming platforms.  And now with those platforms entering the live sports realm,  the traditional networks are forced to up the anty. Golf is simply an unintended beneficiary of the current paradigm shift. 

 

Parity in non-team sports is bad for ratings. Plain and simple. Team sports are a different animal, but they even get a bump when there's an evil empire to root against. 

"Golf is simply an unintended beneficiary of the current paradigm shift."

I don't think that networks are in the business of giving away money. If the above statement was true then why not darts or bowling....!?! Golf reaches some advertisers intended audience and that audience tend to better off financially. Big ticket items like Rolex, Genesis, Mercedes....etc target audience is golf and a flailing Television rating sport will not allow you to be an unintended benificiary.....IMO 

[golfer07840]

74 pages... SEVENTY FOUR. (At least on the mobile version). 

 

Good lord..

[OrangeGravy]

41 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"Golf is simply an unintended beneficiary of the current paradigm shift."

I don't think that networks are in the business of giving away money. If the above statement was true then why not darts or bowling....!?! Golf reaches some advertisers intended audience and that audience tend to better off financially. Big ticket items like Rolex, Genesis, Mercedes....etc target audience is golf and a flailing Television rating sport will not allow you to be an unintended benificiary.....IMO 

They need exclusive content.  The only thing left is Live sporting events. Everything else is available via some streaming platform.  It brings a premium price just for that alone. Golf makes the cut along with the major sports, but it in no way merits a premium price due to rising viewership or even a projected rise in ratings. 

 

Live sports are about the only thing left that people prefer to watch in real-time as scheduled.  Everything else gets streamed at our convenience.  

[OrangeGravy]

46 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"Golf is simply an unintended beneficiary of the current paradigm shift."

I don't think that networks are in the business of giving away money. If the above statement was true then why not darts or bowling....!?! Golf reaches some advertisers intended audience and that audience tend to better off financially. Big ticket items like Rolex, Genesis, Mercedes....etc target audience is golf and a flailing Television rating sport will not allow you to be an unintended benificiary.....IMO 

Another tell is that commercial volume has been rising per telecast. Golf doesn't have enough demand to allow the networks to simply increase the AD buy price to recover that premium they paid for the content.  They have to increase the number of commercials at the same or similar rates, hence you get playing through and a full comm break followed by 2 shots, then full comm  break. All of which drives even more viewers away from regular events. 

[Titleist99]

38 minutes ago, golfer07840 said:

74 pages... SEVENTY FOUR. (At least on the mobile version). 

 

Good lord..

LOL!......I'm new here. Is there a page limit on debates?

Are we running out of Bandwidth?  (I kid)

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

It was like 4 pages ago, or do you just troll so hard that you don't even bother reading posts before you reply?

 

 

 

 

 

the stimp changed, they didnt run at 2.5 in 1963, and greens were absolutely not 3/8" in 1972.

 

I said it was a better game, which youve deliberately misinterpreted to mean just putting, and then just told a total whopper about how fast greens were in that era to make a point. 

 

 

[clevited]

6 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

the stimp changed, they didnt run at 2.5 in 1963, and greens were absolutely not 3/8" in 1972.

 

I said it was a better game, which youve deliberately misinterpreted to mean just putting, and then just told a total whopper about how fast greens were in that era to make a point. 

 

 

 

He got ya man, just own it and move on.

[clevited]

9 hours ago, golfer07840 said:

74 pages... SEVENTY FOUR. (At least on the mobile version). 

 

Good lord..

 

Ha, this is nothing.  I think past years its been over 150 if I remember right.

[smashdn]

17 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I don't think there is data to support that driving has become more important in recent times.  All that can be proven is the relative importance of driving to net score since Shotlink data became available.  Approach shot skill is still most important.

 

Did you read this > https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance ?  Take a look at the first graph and use the toggle to switch the years it graphs.

 

Maybe I misread the article but it seemed like it was saying that driving distance had increased in importance to scoring, especially since 2004.  Accuracy's impact also went up somewhat since 2004 as well but from all the years graphed it has went down. 

[Simpsonia]

7 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

the stimp changed, they didnt run at 2.5 in 1963, and greens were absolutely not 3/8" in 1972.

 

I said it was a better game, which youve deliberately misinterpreted to mean just putting, and then just told a total whopper about how fast greens were in that era to make a point. 

 

 

Quote

Thirty-seven years later, in 1974, Stimpson still owned the only Stimpmeter in the world. At that time, he wrote “Putting greens — How fast?” and reported green speed measurements taken from 1946 to 1973. The average green speed over that period remained 2.5 feet, which included the green speed from the 1963 U.S. Open, which was 2.7 feet.

 

Sorry, so it was 2.7 stimp in 1963's US Open, and I did misquote the length of the grass. That was from the 1922. But it was still fairly close at 1/5" in 1973, and in 1978 they averaged 6.5 stimp. 

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/in-the-race-to-faster-greens-caution-signs-abound-us-open#:~:text=A 2016 Metropolitan Golf Association,study that introduced the Stimpmeter.

 

But I did find it funny how you absolutely demanded I provide proof, but when we ask you for backup or reasoning for your glib assertions, all we get is "read the 74 page thread". I'll probably bow out of this thread now, as it's clear that you have no interest in actually debating, rather making baseless assertions without any sort of backup or reasoning. 

 

 

[clevited]

1 minute ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Sorry, so it was 2.7 stimp in 1963's US Open, and I did misquote the length of the grass. That was from the 1922. But it was still fairly close at 1/5" in 1973, and in 1978 they averaged 6.5 stimp. 

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/in-the-race-to-faster-greens-caution-signs-abound-us-open#:~:text=A 2016 Metropolitan Golf Association,study that introduced the Stimpmeter.

 

But I did find it funny how you absolutely demanded I provide proof, but when we ask you for backup or reasoning for your glib assertions, all we get is "read the 74 page thread". I'll probably bow out of this thread now, as it's clear that you have no interest in actually debating, rather making baseless assertions without any sort of backup or reasoning. 

 

 

 

Stick around, there are more worthwhile people to debate on this.  Just ignore him as I now am.  I tried to get him to have an honest and worthwhile discussion but it is clear he has no interest in that.  You have good thoughts, some I have not thought about.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Did you read this > https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance ?  Take a look at the first graph and use the toggle to switch the years it graphs.

 

Maybe I misread the article but it seemed like it was saying that driving distance had increased in importance to scoring, especially since 2004.  Accuracy's impact also went up somewhat since 2004 as well but from all the years graphed it has went down. 

Yeah, since the PGATOUR stopped growing the rough for their own selfish reasons, not to mention that failed V groove wedge change in 2010. 

 

But, you don't want touring pros hacking out sideway so who could blame them.....IMO

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Ha, this is nothing.  I think past years its been over 150 if I remember right.

It's good to revisit things from time to time......people change their minds and fresh ideas present themselves. IMO

Edited May 5, 2022 by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

57 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

 

Sorry, so it was 2.7 stimp in 1963's US Open, and I did misquote the length of the grass. That was from the 1922. But it was still fairly close at 1/5" in 1973, and in 1978 they averaged 6.5 stimp. 

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/in-the-race-to-faster-greens-caution-signs-abound-us-open#:~:text=A 2016 Metropolitan Golf Association,study that introduced the Stimpmeter.

 

But I did find it funny how you absolutely demanded I provide proof, but when we ask you for backup or reasoning for your glib assertions, all we get is "read the 74 page thread". I'll probably bow out of this thread now, as it's clear that you have no interest in actually debating, rather making baseless assertions without any sort of backup or reasoning. 

 

 

LOL! >>>>>he clearly wants you to argue both sides of the debate. As you say, this poster only adds his nostalgic feelings to the conversation .....which is pathetic. IMO

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

Did you read this > https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance ?  Take a look at the first graph and use the toggle to switch the years it graphs.

 

Maybe I misread the article but it seemed like it was saying that driving distance had increased in importance to scoring, especially since 2004.  Accuracy's impact also went up somewhat since 2004 as well but from all the years graphed it has went down. 

I think that the more important results to be gleaned are that driving distance has bounced around since 1984, but remains fairly unchanged on the whole.  But driving accuracy has decreased as a factor in strokes gained over the same time period.

 

If you think about it, overall distance has increased quite a bit, and courses have not been lengthened proportionately.  So, yes, driving distance has always been important.  But because hitting a higher lofted club from the rough is not as difficult as a longer iron, driving accuracy is not as important.

 

I maintain that if courses were proportionately longer so that approach iron lofts were comparable to the 1980's, accuracy would be more important.  That results simply from having to hit a mid iron out of a nasty lie.  But because courses have not been lengthened in proportion to the distance explosion ( some have been barely lengthened at all), the game has changed, with less importance on accuracy off the tee.

 

Which leads to my observation that reduced driving distances (along with more difficult to hit drivers) would highlight, to a greater degree, the long straight drivers on the Tour.

[Titleist99]

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history

This is the Problem that I have With ANGC and others that want to change golf holes to be more in line with yester year tournaments but still want their putting surfaces to be 13-14 on the stimp for tournament play.

 

It would also apply to the RBs.....if you want to change the equipment, it don't stop there. You'll also need to change the greens both speed and size.....IMO

[Titleist99]

14 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I think that the more important results to be gleaned are that driving distance has bounced around since 1984, but remains fairly unchanged on the whole.  But driving accuracy has decreased as a factor in strokes gained over the same time period.

 

If you think about it, overall distance has increased quite a bit, and courses have not been lengthened proportionately.  So, yes, driving distance has always been important.  But because hitting a higher lofted club from the rough is not as difficult as a longer iron, driving accuracy is not as important.

 

I maintain that if courses were proportionately longer so that approach iron lofts were comparable to the 1980's, accuracy would be more important.  That results simply from having to hit a mid iron out of a nasty lie.  But because courses have not been lengthened in proportion to the distance explosion ( some have been barely lengthened at all), the game has changed, with less importance on accuracy off the tee.

 

Which leads to my observation that reduced driving distances (along with more difficult to hit drivers) would highlight, to a greater degree, the long straight drivers on the Tour.

Lengthening Golf courses only turns golf into a power game that favors the long hitters and reduce the number of players that could win in those tournaments....IMO

 

Lengthening is clearly not the answer here....IMO I favor holding the players accountable for wayward drives.....as of now the penalties are minimum,( so why not wail away).

 

I personally think that having more control from the fairway is long valued commodity.

[Titleist99]

30 minutes ago, gvogel said:

I think that the more important results to be gleaned are that driving distance has bounced around since 1984, but remains fairly unchanged on the whole.  But driving accuracy has decreased as a factor in strokes gained over the same time period.

 

If you think about it, overall distance has increased quite a bit, and courses have not been lengthened proportionately.  So, yes, driving distance has always been important.  But because hitting a higher lofted club from the rough is not as difficult as a longer iron, driving accuracy is not as important.

 

I maintain that if courses were proportionately longer so that approach iron lofts were comparable to the 1980's, accuracy would be more important.  That results simply from having to hit a mid iron out of a nasty lie.  But because courses have not been lengthened in proportion to the distance explosion ( some have been barely lengthened at all), the game has changed, with less importance on accuracy off the tee.

 

Which leads to my observation that reduced driving distances (along with more difficult to hit drivers) would highlight, to a greater degree, the long straight drivers on the Tour.

So, you don't advocate reducing the size of the driver head , you just want them harder to hit?

[Simpsonia]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

 

https://www.gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/green-speed-history

This is the Problem that I have With ANGC and others that want to change golf holes to be more in line with yester year tournaments but still want their putting surfaces to be 13-14 on the stimp for tournament play.

 

It would also apply to the RBs.....if you want to change the equipment, it don't stop there. You'll also need to change the greens both speed and size.....IMO

 

I would actually disagree with this a little bit. For as much as AGNC leans on the whole "tradition" angle for the broadcast and ceremonial aspects, I think the way they approach course management and tournament setup is as close to modern as it gets, without going full Jack and redesigning entire holes on Memorial every handful of years. They have have continuously lengthened tees going back to Tiger-proofing, regrading greens, and relocating and adding new greenside features and bunkers. Even Tiger said in his interviews this year, that two greens were quite different than he was used to, and they added a new approach lip on #6 I think it was? They maybe don't have as many fairway features as some of the youngest Majors courses (like Erin Hills), but they are no slouches when it comes to creating difficult tourney setups. 

 

That's really what modern course management and tourney setup seems to lean on these days is hard and fast greens with a dose of subtle slopes to trick the putter, and lots of greenside features to make approaches more difficult so pros can't just lay it up short and roll on.  

 

Edit: I think this kind of all goes back to my main point is how much more important both putting/short game and the approach have become in modern golf given the massively increased difficulty. That's why we see a much larger rotating cast of winners, because the game is so hard now that it takes excellence in every aspect of the game to win. Back in the day, take Hogan who succeeded over and over in spite of his mediocre putting game because he was such an excellent ball-striker, and the putting didn't matter as much. I think that's what makes some of the modern young stars like Morikawa, Scheffler, etc so amazing is that they can bring every aspect together at once. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Simpsonia

[gvogel]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

So, you don't advocate reducing the size of the driver head , you just want them harder to hit?

I have said in the past, in this thread, that I advocate reducing the size of the driver head to somewhere between 200 cc and 230cc.

[smashdn]

35 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

They maybe don't have as many fairway features as some of the youngest Majors courses (like Erin Hills), but they are no slouches when it comes to creating difficult tourney setups. 

 

There was a time when a ball above or below your feet or a hanging lie was a real problem.  ANGC fairway features were slopes.  Bobby Jones wanted there to be spots within the fairways that offered an advantage (in the form of angle or a flatter lie) to the golfer who could locate his drive there.