distance debate

[Pastit]

40 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Hot take nowadays: Golf is perfectly fine with the parameters set in place. Make the fairways on tour not run out 50 yards and watch what it does to the data. Sure, some classic courses have become obsolete, but that's ok. That happens in a growing game. F1 doesn't race with the same cars from 10 years ago. Sports change, and just because the sport isn't the same as it was when you grew up, doesn't mean it needs to change. Courses that can adapt and host professional events (The ONLY population that this debate is about) will do that. Courses that can't adapt and grow, will still be perfectly fine courses for the other 99% of players.

F1 is not a good analogy since the broad aim for some time has been to limit power eg the demise of the V8 3.5 ltr formula. Also to remove ground effect cars and introduce a standard tyre. But, apparently, lap times show little change.
 

This is a difficult subject and it’s good to see long, straight driving. But, I forget which PGA Tour event I watched recently which was rather boring: maybe that in the desert. If par 4’s and 3’s greens are to be hit with 8 irons then maybe the green sizes/ designs need changing for Tour courses. 
 

For my part, I like to see the tour pros have to hit at least a 3-wood, in still conditions, to reach par 5’s with a 2nd shot. So I would concur with technical limits, across the whole game, to reach that ideal. Amateurs have handicaps to cater for differences in ability so the gear should remain identical for all. That’s my take, sorry.  

Edited February 24, 2022 by Pastit

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

We can all reel off dozens of players from pre 460 days who were incredibly unathletic but at or near the top of the game. Not a chance in the world they would have got near average tour driver speed of 115mph today.

 

Its relative. Are todays players still 'skilful' yes, of course, its a tough sport. Are they as skilled as yesteryear, with tiny hitting surfaces and unrecognisable course maintenance standards? No, of course not. They dont have to be. What they have to do, number one, is swing really fast. Number two, putt. Statistically proven, endlessly.

 

 

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

Edited February 24, 2022 by ThinkingPlus
Better phrasing...

[lggolf42]

The ball definitely needs to be rolled back. You end up taking out some of the best courses ever designed that don't have the land to pump in 250-500 more yards on the course. I don't get the absolute obsession with scoring/offense in sports now a days. We all love it when the US Open tears apart the field and the winner is the only guy under par. Winners should be at 10-15 under weekly on tour for an average event, not 20-30.

[me05501]

9 hours ago, storm319 said:

Not necessarily and that is the problem with this type of regulation. It would need to be different target regulation for each set of test variables which again would be prohibitive. Ultimately a spin minimum under a set of swing variables that would be deemed as optimal today could be circumvented by adjusting one or more of the variables which would essentially just change the definition of optimal (and players would adjust accordingly).

 

Not to argue but are you sure it's that complicated? Honest question, not poking the bear, and I don't know the answer. 

 

Logically we're talking about a device made out of 3-4 pieces of rubber here so it can't be that sophisticated. 

 

The current state of tech is that the ball's core reacts more to the driver's applied straight-line force while the ball's cover reacts to the glancing strike from a wedge. Having established those two variables, I assume the performance of the ball off a mid iron will always somewhere between the two extremes of "less spin off the driver, more spin off the wedges." 

 

If that's the actual situation, it would seem to be a simpler thing to test. But again, I don't know for sure. 

 

 

[amace04]

Alternate theory:

Distance is not, and has never been a problem.

 

If it were a "Problem", then evidently Bryson, Rory, DJ, Champ, Wolff, etc. have cleaned up the tournaments over the past several years.

 

44% of approach shots on tour are from 180+  That's a 7i for most.

 

This whole "Driver/Wedge" thing is completely made up.  It maybe happens a handful of times a round for only select players (with the exceptions of driveable Par 4s).

 

What you DO see is players being more aggressive.  The old mindset of laying up to be safe is gone for a lot of guys.  The numbers show going for a green on a short par 4, even if there's a bunker nearby results in lower scores than leaving yourself a 90y wedge in.

This is a great visual of how that's changed over the years.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMzczZmUyMWQtYzA0Yi00ZmNlLWFmNmEtZWRlNjViZTU2M2Y5IiwidCI6ImJiNjY5NzU2LWM0YTktNDYwMS1hOWYyLWQyNDRlNTQzNzk3MSIsImMiOjJ9

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by amace04

[ChipStrokes]

4 hours ago, milesgiles said:

We can all reel off dozens of players from pre 460 days who were incredibly unathletic but at or near the top of the game. Not a chance in the world they would have got near average tour driver speed of 115mph today.

harris english, braden grace, marc leishman, tyrell hatton, and sebastian munoz all swing it 115 or better and they’re built like ziploc bags full of yogurt. 

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Alternate theory:

Distance is not, and has never been a problem.

 

If it were a "Problem", then evidently Bryson, Rory, DJ, Champ, Wolff, etc. have cleaned up the tournaments over the past several years.

 

44% of approach shots on tour are from 180+  That's a 7i for most.

 

This whole "Driver/Wedge" thing is completely made up.  It maybe happens a handful of times a round for only select players (with the exceptions of driveable Par 4s)

 

are you including par 5's  in that stat?

[milesgiles]

Just now, ChipStrokes said:

harris english, braden grace, marc leishman, tyrell hatton, and sebastian munoz all swing it 115 or better and they’re built like ziploc bags full of yogurt. 

 

 

not compared to Floyd, Trevino, Porky Oliver they arent

[ChipStrokes]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

 

not compared to Floyd, Trevino, Porky Oliver they arent

harry higgs and patrick reed fit the bill, too. 

 

they’re fat slobs in any era. 

[amace04]

1 minute ago, milesgiles said:

 

are you including par 5's  in that stat?

I'm not sure exactly the criteria, so let's assume yes.  Going for a Par 5 in 2 would skew this stat long.  Going for a Par 5 in regulation would skew it short.

[dmecca2]

17 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

must admit cant think of a single one where they are asked to hit much more than 170 into a par 4. Whats your best example?

Why would you consistently want pros to hit more than 170 in on a par 4? They didn't do that back in the day as often as you think. They may have hit a 5 iron back then, but a 5 iron then is a 7 iron now due to loft changes.

Anyways, Augusta #5, Riviera #12&15, Pebble #9, etc. And that's just off the top of my head based on recent events.

[amace04]

Even use last weekends tournament as an example.

 

15 holes:

Looking at only the Par 4s and 5s and assuming an average of 298 yards off the tee (Tour average)

Par 5s:
Average 261 left to the green off the tee

 

Par 4s:

No Approach: 1

<100 yards: 0

<130 yards: 1

<150 yards: 4

<170 yards: 6

<190 yards: 10

<230 yards: 12

<250 yards: 12

<270 yards: 12

<280 yards: 12

<290 yards: 13

<300 yards: 15

 

9 of the 15 holes will have a second shot somewhere between 130 and 190.  That's hardly unreasonable.  6 of those are longer than 150.

 

Where exactly is the problem here?

 

[jvincent]

36 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

Not to argue but are you sure it's that complicated? Honest question, not poking the bear, and I don't know the answer. 

 

Logically we're talking about a device made out of 3-4 pieces of rubber here so it can't be that sophisticated. 

 

The current state of tech is that the ball's core reacts more to the driver's applied straight-line force while the ball's cover reacts to the glancing strike from a wedge. Having established those two variables, I assume the performance of the ball off a mid iron will always somewhere between the two extremes of "less spin off the driver, more spin off the wedges." 

 

If that's the actual situation, it would seem to be a simpler thing to test. But again, I don't know for sure. 

 

 

 

Golf ball aerodynamics and rebound characteristics are very complex. That's why trying to impose a conformance based on a set of spin parameters would be incredibly hard.

 

The current test methodology is fine. What isn't fine are the speed, launch angle, and spin number for the test. Change those and the problem is solved until golfers are capable of swinging at 130 mph CHS consistently.

 

Edited February 24, 2022 by jvincent

[Pastit]

26 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

harris english, braden grace, marc leishman, tyrell hatton, and sebastian munoz all swing it 115 or better and they’re built like ziploc bags full of yogurt. 

Leishman - glasses needed !

[milesgiles]

27 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Why would you consistently want pros to hit more than 170 in on a par 4? They didn't do that back in the day as often as you think. They may have hit a 5 iron back then, but a 5 iron then is a 7 iron now due to loft changes.

Anyways, Augusta #5, Riviera #12&15, Pebble #9, etc. And that's just off the top of my head based on recent events.

 

5 at Augusta is a forced layup so is 9 at pebble don’t know about the other two. 

It’s not just that 170 is a 7 iron(as opposed to a 5), it’s a 7 iron with a ball that is a lot easier to hit straight than it used to be 

Edited February 24, 2022 by milesgiles

[milesgiles]

...

Edited February 24, 2022 by milesgiles

[milesgiles]

18 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Even use last weekends tournament as an example.

 

15 holes:

Looking at only the Par 4s and 5s and assuming an average of 298 yards off the tee (Tour average)

Par 5s:
Average 261 left to the green off the tee

 

Par 4s:

No Approach: 1

<100 yards: 0

<130 yards: 1

<150 yards: 4

<170 yards: 6

<190 yards: 10

<230 yards: 12

<250 yards: 12

<270 yards: 12

<280 yards: 12

<290 yards: 13

<300 yards: 15

 

9 of the 15 holes will have a second shot somewhere between 130 and 190.  That's hardly unreasonable.  6 of those are longer than 150.

 

Where exactly is the problem here?

 

 

Are the averagely long guys winning much then? 

[amace04]

10 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Are the averagely long guys winning much then? 

Neiman averaged 296.8 yards last weekend.

 

[ChipStrokes]

18 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Are the averagely long guys winning much then? 

hoge is 111 in driving distance and he won a few weeks ago 

[dmecca2]

32 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

5 at Augusta is a forced layup so is 9 at pebble don’t know about the other two. 

It’s not just that 170 is a 7 iron(as opposed to a 5), it’s a 7 iron with a ball that is a lot easier to hit straight than it used to be 

Take a look at average proximity to hole stats from each yardage. You will be SHOCKED

[gvogel]

I would like to see the equipment changed so that elite players could be tested on courses of 6,800 yards or so.  They could move the tees back up, and keep the new tees for the super humans who will be playing in 2050.  That's forward looking.

 

Meanwhile, the pros will play shorter courses, and have a chance to decrease the time spent playing.

[BirdieBob]

SIMPLE.....GROW THE ROUGH MUCH, MUCH LONGER!

[gvogel]

3 minutes ago, BirdieBob said:

SIMPLE.....GROW THE ROUGH MUCH, MUCH LONGER!

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

[milesgiles]

17 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

Take a look at average proximity to hole stats from each yardage. You will be SHOCKED

 

I know what they are and not sure I’m shocked just don’t think it’s that relevant..

[BirdieBob]

4 minutes ago, gvogel said:

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

 

The courses are no different.  Just like they cut the greens so they are very fast for tourney play, the rough can be cut in a similar fashion for tour play only.  Once the tourney is over cut it back for the normal play.

No need to change the equipment at all.

 

SIMPLE

Edited February 24, 2022 by BirdieBob

[milesgiles]

27 minutes ago, amace04 said:

Neiman averaged 296.8 yards last weekend.

 

 He’s above average speed, on a course that is historically a shot making course 

[milesgiles]

27 minutes ago, ChipStrokes said:

hoge is 111 in driving distance and he won a few weeks ago 

 

Outlier 

[Duct Tape]

23 hours ago, gvogel said:

I guarantee you that playing the 16th hole at Cypress Point is a much bigger challenge with persimmon and balata than with today's equipment.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

[ChipStrokes]

4 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Outlier 

and cam smith winning the TOC at 117 on the distance list ?

Edited February 24, 2022 by ChipStrokes

[amace04]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 He’s above average speed, on a course that is historically a shot making course 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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