Myths About Golf Equipment And Performance

[Gxgolfer]

By Dick Rugge Senior Technical Director United States Golf Associatio

Click for full Article>>>Here

1. Golfers with faster swing speeds get disproportionately greater distance benefits from new golf balls that have been introduced after 2000.

False. Physics, scientific tests, and actual results on the PGA Tour all confirm that faster swinging players have not gained a disproportionate amount of distance from modern golf balls. An example: Corey Pavin, the shortest hitter in 2000, gained about the same amount of distance from 2000 to 2005 (7.4 yards) as the longest (John Daly at 8.7 yards).

2. Golf ball distance is not currently limited.

False. Golf ball distance has been regulated since 1976 and golf ball rebound characteristics have been regulated since the 1940s. In 2004, the USGA updated its testing methodology to more closely reflect the athleticism and clubs of today's Tour pros. All golf balls played on Tour and the vast majority of golf balls sold have passed the USGA’s distance limit test.

3. Driving distance on Tour is increasing rapidly

False. While average PGA Tour driving distance significantly increased over the past 10 years, it has leveled off during the past three. The average increase since the level of 2003 to the current level in 2006 is only about 1 yard per year.

4. The longest hitters on the PGA Tour finish higher on the money list.

False. While some long-driving professionals have been very successful, on average, the top 10 driving distance players have actually been falling down on the money list in recent years. From 1980-85 the average rank was 64.2; in 2000-2005 it was 77.1. The second worst single year average rank on the money list of the longest 10 drivers was in 2004 with an average rank of 103.3.

5. Most of the PGA Tour professionals swing at 120 mph or more.

False. The average swing speed on the PGA Tour is approximately 113 mph. There are some who swing at or higher than 120 mph, but they are clearly in the minority.

6. The USGA ball test doesn't control ball distance well enough because actual pro golfer swings are different than the test method.

False. The test method employed by the USGA, using a 120 mph swing speed, is representative of the swing conditions used by the longer PGA Tour professionals. The USGA tests balls like the PGA Tour pros hit balls.

7. The average distance for 5-irons on Tour is more than 200 yards.

False. The PGA Tour Shotlink system, which records virtually all shots throughout the season, shows that the average 5-iron shot from fairway to green is approximately 185 yards. From the tee on par threes, the average 5-iron distance is about 197 yards.

8. You get more distance when you put topspin on a drive.

False. Every normally struck drive has backspin. Backspin generates lift and keeps the ball in the air. You can put topspin on a ball – but only when you 'top' the ball. It will go a very short distance and dive into the ground.

9. Accuracy off the tee isn’t as important as it used to be on the PGA Tour.

That’s no myth, it’s true. During the '80s driving accuracy was almost as strong a predictor of money-winning as putting. Today it has fallen to the lowest level ever.

[fish]

Very interesting !!!! GREAT post!!!!

 

 

fish

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

The swing speed numbers were interesting.

[Damo75]

Excellent article.

 

Thanks Gx. Great post! :golfer:

[Golfdog]

There is more spin than fact in those numbers. For example, in item #1, Daly increased by 17.6% more than Pavin. That sounds disproportionate to me.

 

Regarding the testing/limiting of the golf ball for distance, the USGA didn't change it's testing methods until recently--long after the distance genie was out of the bottle.

 

Regarding driving distance and earnings: not all of the longest drivers are top money winners, but most of the top money winners are long drivers (7 of the top 10 last year). IOW, there are some guys who can move it but don't win much, but most of the guys who win a lot hit it long.

[arkstorm]

There is more spin than fact in those numbers. For example, in item #1, Daly increased by 17.6% more than Pavin. That sounds disproportionate to me.

 

 

Your figure of 17.6% is highly deceiving as well as irrelevant. E.g: 2 yards vs. 1 yard is a 100% difference, but in reality a 1 yard increase doesn't mean much. Thus the percent change in this matter is less relevant to defining "disproportionate" than the overall yardage difference and what real advantage said yardage difference yields.

 

Daly's 1.3 yard increase over Pavin is better discussed as 1.3 yards as opposed to 17.6%. So no offense, but saying the figures are, "more spin than fact" depends on what side of the argument you sit on.

 

As far as I'm concerned, 1.3 yards is 1.3 yards. Its not a significant difference. But if you want to get hyper technical, I did some research and discovered the following:

 

In 2000, Daly's driving average was 301.4, Pavin's was 251.3.

 

In 2005, Daly's driving average was 310.1, Pavin's was 258.7.

 

The numbers translate to a 2.8% increase for Daly and a 2.9% increase for Pavin. So, in terms of percentage, between 2000 and 2005, slow swinging Pavin benefited more from the new ball technology than Daly.

 

But it gets even better...since, arguably, tournament directors took a while to adjust their coruses to the new ball and club technology, 2003 was a longer driving year than 2005 for both Daly (314.3) and Pavin (268.9). From 2000 to 2003, that’s a 4.3% increase for Daly and a whopping 7% increase for Pavin.

 

Now, do you still think the new ball technology benefits bombers more than short hitters?

 

Spin that!

 

[All data from http://www.pgatour.com/stats/leaders/r/2006/101]

[HipCheck]

I think the most important statistic here is I can outdrive Corey Pavin. (cool)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He does have a slight edge on earnings though. :golfer:

[NPVWhiz]

The USGA has taken a lot of criticism, most very well deserved, over the last couple of decades for being so far behind the technology curve when it comes to rulesmaking.

 

Everything that Mr. Rugge had written sounds very sensible. Consider the following, point by point.

 

1. John Daly may already have been playing a more modern ball in 2000. The modern ball came around 1996 or 1997. The real question is how much longer is it over the old 384 Tour Balata. Just because the transition takes place over 10 years doesn't mean that the game hasn't been degraded.

 

2. That's exactly the problem. The USGA woke up one day and realized, about 10 years too late, that their ball testing method had no connection to reality. When they finally started using a test driver that was even remotely similar to what tour players were hitting, and a clubhead speed that matched, they realized that the 2004 ball traveled about 35 yards farther. So instead of saying, "we have a problem here", they just changed the maximum distance in the rule.

 

3. This is like saying, yes the building was on fire, but look...it's burned out now. So there's no problem! It doesn't matter that the fire department never came. Besides, it wouldn't do any good to call them now. The fire's all burned out. OK folks, go home. There's no fire here.

 

4. I bet you could make a good analytical argument that among the 10 longest players on tour, 5 of them wouldn't even be on tour except for their long driving. What the USGA would like you to believe is that it doesn't pay to be a long hitter. The better analysis would be the average rank of the top 20% of long hitters, vs. the average rank of the bottom 20% of long hitters. Then you'd really see how much length pays off.

 

 

I'll stop at number four with a simple statistic for the PGA tour for 2005.

 

The top 20 players in driving distance earned an average of about $85,000 per event they played.

 

The bottom 20 in driving distance earned an average of about $23,000 per event they played.

 

The top 20 had an average moneylist rank of 95. The bottom 20 had an average rank of 150.

(The interpretation is that some players whose only strength is crushing length can make a living on the tour)

 

But, like Rugge confirms in number 9, accuracy off the tee no longer has any relationship to money earned or final money list ranking.

[arkstorm]

He does have a slight edge on earnings though. :golfer:

 

4-wood accuracy and Majors too!

[albiefresh]

"Spin that."

 

I'll absolutely spin that. All this guy did was select someone whose numbers in a particular year were off and used that as a comparison. To counter him, let's just look at a guy like Fred Couples instead of Daly. Fred is a long hitter and is older, not a big fitness guy, etc., so the nos. don't come from him suddenly getting stronger, more flexible, etc.

 

Anyway, Fred improved in driving distance from 283.4 in 1999 to 302.7 this year - that's a 19.3 yard increase. By comparison, Corey went from 252.5 in 1999 to 259.9 this year, only a 7.4 yard increase. I'd also venture to guess that Fred occasionally does not hit driver on the measured holes whereas Correy always hits driver on the measured holes. These nos. support that the long hitters have gotten a disproportionate adavantage based on the new balls.

[arkstorm]

The USGA has taken a lot of criticism, most very well deserved, over the last couple of decades for being so far behind the technology curve when it comes to rulesmaking.

 

Everything that Mr. Rugge had written sounds very sensible. In number 9, accuracy off the tee no longer has any relationship to money earned or final money list ranking.

 

That much is true. Its better to bomb the ball off the fairway and have a 100 yard shot from the rough than to put it in the middle but have 150 in.

 

The point is not that the bombers don't have an advantage over accuracy.

 

The point IS, that despite whether or not the USGA adapted quickly enough to the technology, all tour players, regardless of swing speed, benefited from it to a more or less equal degree.

[GoingPro]

After working as an analyst for a consulting company, it comes as no surprise to me that you can manipulate numbers any way you want to prove a point.

 

There seems to be plenty of people on messageboards or at bars everywhere who tell people they bomb the ball 300+ with a swingspeed of around 115-120 since they lay off it and go for accuracy. The reason they are on messageboards and not on tour is you need a complete game to be a touring pro, not even a hugely successful one. I believe every guy on the PGA has every tool necessary to be successful, but the guys with the distance simply have a better tool that makes success much more easily attained.

 

Here's a question i have...

Who was the most recent "short hitter" to make an impact on tour? Is it all media hype that the guys like Watson and Holmes are getting the attention as the guys to watch? I do not believe that it is. Sure it's easy to point out their freakishly long distance and that's a lot more fun than to root for a guy who knocks it 270 off the tee and has ana amazing long iron game, but now that so much emphasis is put on length, how many guys are coming up thorugh the amatuer ranks and onto tour because of their deft mid-iron play? How many young pros are out there that are in the Pavin/Funk mold? Luke Donald perhaps?

[arkstorm]

"Spin that."

 

I'll absolutely spin that. All this guy did was select someone whose numbers in a particular year were off and used that as a comparison. To counter him, let's just look at a guy like Fred Couples instead of Daly. Fred is a long hitter and is older, not a big fitness guy, etc., so the nos. don't come from him suddenly getting stronger, more flexible, etc.

 

Anyway, Fred improved in driving distance from 283.4 in 1999 to 302.7 this year - that's a 19.3 yard increase. By comparison, Corey went from 252.5 in 1999 to 259.9 this year, only a 7.4 yard increase. I'd also venture to guess that Fred occasionally does not hit driver on the measured holes whereas Correy always hits driver on the measured holes. These nos. support that the long hitters have gotten a disproportionate adavantage based on the new balls.

 

Nice spin...if the statistics don't go your way find a player who's statistical data helps your case?

 

As a matter of fact, the original post compares Daly to Pavin so we can either stick to that or not (I did not choose the players, therefore, you can't say I'm manipulating the stats to bolster my argument). I'm sure that in certain instances some longer hitting players did benefit more than some shorter hitters. But by comparing Daly and Pavin the point remains that the technology helped one as much as the other.

 

Also, you used different years than the example...and you used a player (Boom-Boom) who is having a great year in terms of ball striking and driving distance. Pavin, on the other hand, is pretty much over the hill in the PGA and yet benefited more greatly than JD between '00-'05. So your response is more or less moot. But nonetheless, Fred Couples' distance change from '99-'06 equals an increase of 6.8%. Pavin still wins.

 

So yes, "Spin that!"

[arkstorm]

 

Here's a question i have...

Who was the most recent "short hitter" to make an impact on tour? Is it all media hype that the guys like Watson and Holmes are getting the attention as the guys to watch? I do not believe that it is. Sure it's easy to point out their freakishly long distance and that's a lot more fun than to root for a guy who knocks it 270 off the tee and has ana amazing long iron game, but now that so much emphasis is put on length, how many guys are coming up thorugh the amatuer ranks and onto tour because of their deft mid-iron play? How many young pros are out there that are in the Pavin/Funk mold? Luke Donald perhaps?

 

 

Excellent point.

 

Notice that despite all that's said about distance, Donald can still win on tour, and Funk can even win the Players'.

 

Distance isn't everything ladies and gentlemen, nor is failing to monitor and control it (USGA) the death of the game.

[arkstorm]

So Pavin gains 7.4 yards and Daly 8.7. These numbers aren't "about the same". They are statistically quite different. Daily gets 1.3 more yards. That's about 18% MORE YARDAGE.

 

So, does Daly have to gain 300% more yardage for a "difference". Geez, get an education. Anyhow, what does the robot testing say? Perhaps if "real world" testing were used, the driver shaft would be accounted for? Maybe those "springlike effect" driver heads that slightly cave in and spring out when they impact a ball? And spin has no real difference on distance? Any of you hit different balls and notice a difference?

 

Senior golfers drive the ball MUCH FURTHER than they did in their teens through their 30's. The swing graphite shafts so whippy, I think I'd break them. Yet, they crack the ball out further than many energy wasting "high swing speed" players I know.

 

Interesting! 7.4 vs. 8.7 is "statistically quite different" because its a difference of almost 18%; same as .74 vs. .87; same as .074 vs. .087...because they are all a difference of about 18%. So by your logic 1.3 yards is just as statistically significant as .13 yards which is just as significant as .013 yards. But I need to get an education?

 

Don't make it personal man, you just come off sounding like a doughnut.

[HipCheck]

Are we really upset because Corey Pavin can't win anymore? I don't think so, unless your last name is Pavin.

 

1.3 yards, while being 'statistically significant', is not 'real world significant'. That equates to, say one-tenth of a a club in distance. That's not the difference between hitting 5 iron and 8 iron. The advantage is still w/the long baller.

 

Course lengths have changed to preserve the art of the approach shot, which is lost on the PGA Tour in this age of distance. If the course designer invisioned a long iron or fairway wood approach and the Shotlink averages are showing 7 iron is a typical club, a revamp is necessary.

 

It's a little bit of a shame, really. It's like in tennis. If anyone has watched tennis in the past, McEnroe vs. Connors used to have long, fantastically creative rallies point after point. They worked shots and their opponents and had to constantly be creative. As soon as the oversized, wide profile, composite racquets were developed, mens tennis became a 'pound your serve' game and is no longer fun to watch. It shows that technology can dominate a game.

 

I hope golf doesn't suffer the same fate.

[arkstorm]

Again, very good point HipCheck. And very good analogy too.

[albiefresh]

"Nice spin...if the statistics don't go your way find a player who's statistical data helps your case?"

 

Duh - that's exactly what the "mythbuster" did - so he did not do any mythbusting, he "spun" nos. by choosing the players to suit his needs. All I did was exactly the same thing that he did, so I "proved" that which he called a "myth", just by switching players.

 

"But by comparing Daly and Pavin the point remains that the technology helped one as much as the other." Why is Daly any better of a choice than Couples??? No "point remains" by selectively picking Daly (rather than Couples). It doesn't "prove" anything whatsoever. That's why the original poster said that it was USGA "spin" rather than "mythbusting". And you obviously agree that it was spin, because when I did exactly the same thing as the USGA, you said I was spinning - thanks for proving my point for me.

 

"But nonetheless, Fred Couples' distance change from '99-'06 equals an increase of 6.8%. Pavin still wins.

 

So yes, "Spin that!""

 

You might want to take the remedial course in math next year. Fred increased 19.3 yards over his 283.4 yard average - you are correct that that is a 6.8% increase. Corey's increase of 7.4 yards over his 252.5 yard average is only a 2.9% increase, so unless you are using some kind of new math, I think Fred increased by quite a bit more than Corey. Use your fingers and toes next time if it helps.

[arkstorm]

You might want to take the remedial course in math next year. Fred increased 19.3 yards over his 283.4 yard average - you are correct that that is a 6.8% increase. Corey's increase of 7.4 yards over his 252.5 yard average is only a 2.9% increase, so unless you are using some kind of new math, I think Fred increased by quite a bit more than Corey. Use your fingers and toes next time if it helps.

 

Your logic is dizzying, I'll grant you that.

 

But to make things clear we need to use the same time span as the original example, 2000-2005. In those years, Couples' driving went from 284.7 to 296.4 or + 4.1%. In that same time period Pavin went +4.3%.

 

The original point is that the equipment technology did not benefit the long hitters more than the short hitters. That point is still supported considering your example of Couples vs. Pavin. Pavin outpaced Couples' gain by .2% (that remedial math is really kicking in now).

 

But you might really want to consider brushing up on your "reading for special boys and girls", or whatever they called it at that special ed. school where they sent you because it seems you didn't read the entire post from the beginning. (We'll have to add pictures to maintain your attention.)

 

More importantly, note that you really lost sight of the original point of the article, regarding the benefits of technology from player to player. If we compare long hitters to short ones over a similar time period its clear that golfers with faster swing speeds did not get disproportionately greater distance benefits from the new technology.

 

And btw, registration for next year's courses is coming up...you should look into special ed. "basic life skills". Put on your helmet and the short bus will pick you right up. Just leave the logic exercises to those of us with triple digit I.Q.'s (All in good fun, right?)

[dtwainright]

Very good post...it makes me feel better :-)

[albiefresh]

I would imagine that any logic would be dizzying to you.

 

I will quote your original post on the nos. so that maybe you can read it correctly.

 

"But nonetheless, Fred Couples' distance change from '99-'06 equals an increase of 6.8%. Pavin still wins."

 

It seems like I read that pretty clearly, maybe you need to go back to the crayons for writing, the computer seems a bit much for you. I will spell it out step-by-step so maybe you get it.

 

A - in this quote, you write that Fred's increase from 1999-2006 is 6.8%. Hey you got that one right.

B - in this same quote, you write that "Pavin still wins" - Now, maybe I'm illogical (doubt it), but I interpreted that to mean that Pavin's distance increased a greater percentage over the same time period. Seems like a logical conclusion to me, but maybe it was a bit dizzying to you.

C - Of course, you now realize that your statement was 100% incorrect, as Pavin's increase over the time period you used in the direct quote above, was only 2.9%.

D - In case you need to know, 6.8% > 2.9% (by the way, ">" means "greater than" in case you didn't get that far in school yet).

 

So - maybe instead of asking me to learn to read, you may want to learn how to write, or at least learn how to read your own quotes.

 

And to make things even clearer, the time span chosen is just another way to "spin" the nos. You think that the USGA may have picked 2000 as the starting point because a lot of players had already switched to solid core balls? Duh - of course they did. So again, my original point is 100% accurate, which is that the USGA's "analysis" (if you can call it that), didn't bust any myths, merely spun some nos. You know what they say - "liars figure and figures lie".

[arkstorm]

Pardon the misunderstanding, but I intentionally used Pavin's '00-'05 compared to Couples' '99-'05 to demonstrate the importance of keeping the measuring period straight. Thanks for highliting my point for me.

 

If you would have read the entire discussion, not just the sentences that you chose to quote out of context, it all would have made more sense for you.

 

As for numbers lying, that much is true. Numbers can be manipulated to express whatever conclusion you choose. However, after working with numbers from various years, I was surprised to learn that point 1. of that article is absolutely 100% objectively correct. As for the rest of it, I'll reserve my comments. But the statistics are clear, no matter what years you compare, if you take the 20 longest guys compared to the 20 shortest, you'll see that, in terms of percent, the technology helped their distance more or less equally.

 

Sure, certain individual players' stats will run contrary to this. But as a whole, the principle is sound.

 

I don't have the time to do this, but feel free to tabulate a spreadsheet to prove or disprove my point. I'll make sure the teacher gives you a gold star either way for your efforts.

 

As for me, I gotta get back to my crayons, because as it turns out, a contract is enforceable even if drafted in crayola.

 

P.S.

 

One additional point, if you want to insist that numbers lie and the statistics are skewed, check out the thread titled, "Do Long Hitters Get An Unfair Benefit?" to read an explanation of the science behind why you are wrong.

[Gxgolfer]

Here's some more fuel for the fire:

 

Click for Article>>>Here

 

Golf Technology: Myths, Reality, and Answers

 

By Ryan Ballengee

 

Rugge is right. Players are gaining distance, on the average, about the same regardless of swing speed. But that is not the main point to be drawn from this statistic. Let me use the example of Pavin and Daly to demonstrate the real point.

 

Golf courses are being lengthened across the board on the PGA Tour as a result of increased driving distance due in large part to better golf ball technology. These increases, though, are in reaction to the golfers who average 300 or more yards off the tee — not the Corey Pavins and Fred Funks of the world. Ten years ago, in 1996, there were no golfers that averaged 300 yards off of the tee. In 2000, there was one — John Daly. In 2005, there were 26 golfers that average 300 yards or more in driving distance.

 

Although the lengthening has been made in response to the longest 10% of drivers on the Tour, the changes most drastically affect the bottom 20 percent — golfers which average less than 280 yards. Let's bring Pavin and Daly back in for our hypothetical example. Say that a par 4 on a Tour stop course used to be 425 yards in 2000. Both Daly and Pavin would hit driver off of the tee then. Assume they hit their average distance. Daly would be left with about 120 yards to the hole and hit a pitching wedge into the pin. Pavin would be left with about 170 and hit a 5 or 6 iron to the green. Daly is at a huge advantage, right?

 

Well, say the 2005 tournament committee at this stop decides to lengthen the hole by 35 yards to 460 yards in response to increased driving distance. Again, assume both players hit their average distance (in 2005). Daly will be left with 150 yards to the hole after his drive and approach with a 9 iron. He had to up by one club. Pavin will be left with a touch over 200 yards to the hole. Corey will be hitting a 4 or 3 iron to the hole, if not a 5 wood. While the distance increase cost Daly one club, Pavin will have to up by two sticks to get home.

 

John Daly now has an even larger advantage over Corey Pavin than he did in 2000 on the average golf hole, despite the fact that both have gained approximately the same distance off the tee thanks to technology. While Pavin is a slightly extreme example, you could replace him with Mark O'Meara, Jay Haas, or Brad Faxon and still come up with a similar result. All of the aforementioned shorties have great short games that would allow them to excel and level out the competition without the additional distance — especially over John Daly. Now, though, that advantage is marginalized.

 

The discussion about distance brings us to the third myth in the message: "Driving distance on Tour is increasing rapidly." The USGA admits that driving distance has increased dramatically in the last 10 years, but feels that the increase has leveled off in the past three years to about a yard per year.

 

Again, the USGA is not really off base here. Driving distance increases have leveled off — after a decade in which average driving distance increased by nearly 20 yards. The damage has already been done and will continue. Even if driving distances to increase at a yard per year, the incremental growth will alarm the golfing community. It will serve as bait to continue reactionary lengthening and other course changes made by tournaments.

 

It was just announced this week that Medinah, the site of the 2006 PGA Championship, will be the longest major championship course in history at an absurd 7,561 yards. This comes just two years after playing the PGA Championship at Whistling Straits, which will hold the record until this summer.

[arkstorm]

On these facts, the argument changes from whether technology favors the power hitters in the theoretical plane (no it does not) to whether technology favors the power hitters in practice?

 

Based on two prototypical players, one long, one short...If both are equally accurate, then it would stand to reason that the longer player has a huge advantage due to the reaction of tournament directors in extending the layouts to absurd yardages.

 

I would even agree that this holds true for two players of marginal accuracy.

 

However, course managers can do things to place more of a premium on accuracy without lengthening the layout so much so that the short hitters are at the dissadvantage described above. And the answer has nothing to do with limits on the technology in the equipment, because as we've established, those limits fall proportionally as you make your way down the average driving distance list.

 

As things stand now, I would agree 100% that the long hitters have an advantage.

 

But to really throw fuel on the fire, I pose the question: what, if anything, should tournament directors do to level the field?

 

And letting Pavin play from the members' tees is not a valid answer.

 

Neither is instituting a "Handicapper General" (for you Kurt Vonnegut fans):

 

"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else...All this equality was due [...] to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General...

"Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains..."

 

All this talk of tournament balls...is this really what its coming to?

[davy9]

So Pavin gains 7.4 yards and Daly 8.7. These numbers aren't "about the same". They are statistically quite different. Daily gets 1.3 more yards. That's about 18% MORE YARDAGE.

 

So, does Daly have to gain 300% more yardage for a "difference". Geez, get an education.

 

 

 

This post makes me shake my head. Especially the "get an education" statement. As someone has already stated, IT'S ALL RELATIVE!

 

NOTE: I'm not using the following two examples as a proof that one side is correct. I am just puting what was said above into perspective.

 

Using the following numbers (Same as used in previous post):

 

2000 - 2005:

 

Daly: 301.4 - 310.1

 

Pavin: 251.3 - 258.7

 

It is true that Pavin gains 7.4 yrds while Daly gains 8.7yrds. However this is not a relavant statement!

 

What is relevant is that Pavin gains 2.94% of his 2000 distance, while Daly gains 2.89% of his 2000 distance. Thus, relatively speaking, Pavin gained more of a personal distance advantage than Daly from 2000 - 2005.

 

To put this into perspective, take the following hypothetical example.

 

Take two golfers, one is old and decrepid, he currently drives the ball 50yrds, the second can bomb the ball 350yrds.

 

Now say that some new technology came about that made each of these golfers gain 50 yrds, its all equal right? NO ITS NOT!

 

The 350yrd golfer (now 400yrd) has increased his distance by 14%. But the first golfer DOUBLED his distance. Clearly this technology gave the fist golfer more of an advantage.

 

That aside, someone above also stated a point worth mentioning again. When performing a research study, one will not just take one sample from two categories and compare them. However, they would take a large sample from both categories and compare them. That being said, I do not have the time or for that matter the interest in taking the bottom and top 20% driving distances and comparing how much each or them increased their distances. But to put a rest to this debate, this would be the only thing that would give an accurate enough assesment for who actually has benifited the most from the technological advances. (Distance wise, not including the fact that the courses are adding yardage)

[albiefresh]

"Sure, certain individual players' stats will run contrary to this. But as a whole, the principle is sound."

 

Well - since you only used one player and only one specific period of time, you really can't say that "the principle is sound". It's just like me saying that because of the Couples/Pavin comparison from 1999-2006, the point that long hitters do get a disproportionate advantage is sound, but certain individual players (like say Daly, who went from hitting a draw to a fade) will run contrary to the principle.

 

Here's another example for you - Tiger 1999 = 293.1; 2005 = 316.1, that's a 7.847% increase compared to Fred Funk in the same time period, 1999 = 269.7; 2005 = 270.0, that's a .11% increase.

 

As for this - "Pardon the misunderstanding, but I intentionally used Pavin's '00-'05 compared to Couples' '99-'05 to demonstrate the importance of keeping the measuring period straight. Thanks for highliting my point for me." You mean highlighting the point that your numbers were completely wrong, you don't know how to do math, and you are completely illogical, well then, you're welcome.

[Gxgolfer]

Keep this discussion civil please or there will be mass editing.

[NPVWhiz]

I'll gently suggest that self-professed estimates of IQ and driving distance are comparable on golf boards, but I'd like to see this one get back on topic.

 

The USGA would like for us to believe that there really isn't a problem with the distances that players are driving the ball these days.

 

Which among these two is the greater skill; pounding the ball 320 into the rough, or driving the ball 275 into the fairway 70% of the time?

 

Has anyone ever been to a long drive event and marveled, "Wow. That guy has a swing just like Sam Snead!"

 

Call me a swing snob, but I watch JB Holmes hit a golf ball and I just cringe. Same for Hank Kuehne.

 

I think that rough ought to be a uniform penalty given the distance from the hole. Make it 8 inches deep from 125 in, and 2 inches shorter every 20 yards back from that.

 

I do recognize that nobody wants to see that style of golf but for once a year, at the US Open. That's fine I guess.

 

I don't want to kill the advantage that the long, straight hitter (like Nicklaus or Norman) has over the field. I want to remove the advantage that the long, crooked hitter has over the skilled shorter hitter.

[Golf_Beauty]

I'll gently suggest that self-professed estimates of IQ and driving distance are comparable on golf boards, but I'd like to see this one get back on topic.

 

The USGA would like for us to believe that there really isn't a problem with the distances that players are driving the ball these days.

 

Which among these two is the greater skill; pounding the ball 320 into the rough, or driving the ball 275 into the fairway 70% of the time?

 

Has anyone ever been to a long drive event and marveled, "Wow. That guy has a swing just like Sam Snead!"

 

Call me a swing snob, but I watch JB Holmes hit a golf ball and I just cringe. Same for Hank Kuehne.

 

I think that rough ought to be a uniform penalty given the distance from the hole. Make it 8 inches deep from 125 in, and 2 inches shorter every 20 yards back from that.

 

I do recognize that nobody wants to see that style of golf but for once a year, at the US Open. That's fine I guess.

 

I don't want to kill the advantage that the long, straight hitter (like Nicklaus or Norman) has over the field. I want to remove the advantage that the long, crooked hitter has over the skilled shorter hitter.

 

Thank you, NPV. We seem to have lost the "skill" factor in the PGA. Everybody wants to pound the ball, not caring wheter it's in the fairway or in the rough. As long as they can get the ball out farther than the last or next guy. I miss seeing the finesse shots of old. One thing I do like about the LPGA and TCT is that these gals and guys show us how to use the mid/short irons like a finely tuned instrument. Sometimes I wonder why they (the PGA) even bother with putting mid irons in their bags. They hardly ever use them anymore.

[arkstorm]

I owe albiefresh an apology. I crunched the numbers of top and bottom 20 in driving distance in '00 and '05 and it appears the top 20 did in fact benefit more in terms of percentage:

 

Top 20 +6.3 %

Bottom 20 +4.9%

 

However, the problem is that the top and bottom 20 in the respective years were comprised of different players. I.e. I couldn't compare the same group of 20 players in each year.

 

So now it lends itself to this argument, how much of it is based on equipment, and how much of it is based on increased fitness and other variables? Discuss!

 

So you see albiefresh, maybe its I who should be on the short bus. LOL. But maybe not.