Planned 2030 Golf Ball Rollback

[RickyBobby_PR]

6 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

The equipment manufacturers, ball manufacturers, pro tours and anybody else interested need to get together and adopt their own set of rules, most likely the current USGA rules, but without the new ball, and possibly without the optional 46 inch club length limit. Drivers longer than 48 inches tend to spray the ball so badly that even that limit could be abolished. In real golf (not long drive competitions) drivers over 48 inches are more of a liability. They would work only for extremely tall golfers - 6'6" or more.

I’m waiting for the day. The change for the 48” length was another dumb decision by the ruling bodies. Had no effect on distance whatsoever and the number of people in tour looking to use it was less than 5. Another example of the ruling bodies doing something that did nothing and allows them to pat themselves on the back and say we did something to control the distance gains

[RickyBobby_PR]

2 minutes ago, silver & black said:

 You must have some reason/thoughts for your post. Can you give some clarification on why you feel this way?

Considering the longest guys still hit their woods 300 yards and dj with an ill fitted persimmon driver and modern ball hit it 300, the size of the club for the pros isn’t going to make distance any less of a concern for the ruling bodies.

[DaveP043]

7 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

The equipment manufacturers, ball manufacturers, pro tours and anybody else interested need to get together and adopt their own set of rules, most likely the current USGA rules, but without the new ball, and possibly without the optional 46 inch club length limit. Drivers longer than 48 inches tend to spray the ball so badly that even that limit could be abolished. In real golf (not long drive competitions) drivers over 48 inches are more of a liability. They would work only for extremely tall golfers - 6'6" or more.

Do you imagine that the USGA and R&A have no copyright issues if someone else decides to simply copy those rules?  No, whoever wants to have different rules will need to write their own, starting from scratch, and they do NOT want to do that.  

[Franc38]

28 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Do you imagine that the USGA and R&A have no copyright issues if someone else decides to simply copy those rules?  No, whoever wants to have different rules will need to write their own, starting from scratch, and they do NOT want to do that.  

Not a really hard thing to do, honestly...

Plus the "rules" in general are likely public domain as they derive from things/texts that date back from the XVIIIth century and were never intended to be copy-righted...

Or simply put, take the rules from 1965, add a section for equipment that is "modern" and made with the manufacturers... plus change a few bits and bobs here and there, add a rule for relief from the divots in the fairway and you'll be happy as Larry.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Franc38

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

Not a really hard thing to do, honestly...

Plus the "rules" in general are likely public domain as they derive from things/texts that date back from the XVIIIth century and were never intended to be copy-righted...

Not that easy?  You'd be surprised.

But as regards copyrights, my copy of the Complete Guide indicates very clearly that the USGA maintains copyrights over the Rules as published.  Obviously that could end up in the courts if someone developed their own set of rules, but I don't think anyone has an interest in doing that.  How many times have we heard a tour pro say "We need to have our own rules", and how many times has the Tour shown any interest in doing it?

[RickyBobby_PR]

23 minutes ago, Franc38 said:

Not a really hard thing to do, honestly...

Plus the "rules" in general are likely public domain as they derive from things/texts that date back from the XVIIIth century and were never intended to be copy-righted...

Or simply put, take the rules from 1965, add a section for equipment that is "modern" and made with the manufacturers... plus change a few bits and bobs here and there, add a rule for relief from the divots in the fairway and you'll be happy as Larry.

It happens in other areas pretty regularly. In powerlifting most federations rule books read very similarly and in some cases it’s almost verbatim. 
 

It would take some work for a writer to develop a new rulebook but I don’t think it’s as hard as some think. It’s more of whether the organization wants to take on that role or not.

When push comes to shove someone will do it. 

[Pkc]

20 hours ago, HikingMike said:

The link to where I found it is right there in the comment. Here's a link back to that post.

I totally agree with most of that, great points. The bigger driver heads have had a huge impact. Everyone is swinging barn doors now. People could hit as far in the past, but the problem was inconsistency if you swung harder with the smaller head. When the inconsistency was removed, the risk was removed, and people had much less reason to not swing hard. It is less of a risk/reward situation. Driver shafts got longer then too. I know my driver was both shorter, and smaller head when I played in high school. It may have had similar weight though, I'm not sure. I just checked (with a measurement on satellite view of my old course!) and I'm actually not hitting too much longer now than I did then, at least on my best drives at the time because it varied quite a lot. The ball definitely isn't the sole factor. Like you said, there were balls that went much farther than the tour balatas. But the pros used the tour balatas for other reasons. The game has had a big change regarding distance due to many factors.

The PGA shows the average driving distance in 2000 was 273 yards, and in 2023 it's 297. So that's a little more of a change than your numbers, 24 yards instead of 11. If you go back to the early 90s, it's more like a 34-37 yard change.

I found data here: https://www.pga.com/story/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-the-past-40-years-on-the-pga-tour

And I made this line graph so it was easier to digest.

My thing is - regardless of the reasons for the change, and regardless of how a very modest rollback is achieved... I would prefer the average way golf courses are being played to not change this much. And we know the game is in for more change in the future if something isn't adjusted.

Guess my biggest issue is why now, when Nicolas played everyone complained about how easy it was for them and how far they hit.  But instead of changes rules, the outgoing crowd was interested in seeing where technology takes the game.  The US Open in 1901 at Myopia Hunt Club was barely 6,000 yards, this year it was over 7,400 yards.  Courses didn’t gain 1,400 yards overnight, it slowly happened over decades.  My instructor in high school and college was Lighthouse Harry Cooper, he lived through many eras of golf and I stayed friends with him until he passed away in 2000.  He always joked about how much easier and better equipment was from when he was on tour in the 1920’s and 30’s.  Instead of being upset about it, he loved how it was making golf more accessible and with graphite shafts he was excited to be able to swing a club again.  Thanks to its light weight and not bothering his arthritis or joints as much.  He looked forward to what was next in golf, instead of criticizing that golf courses are a 1,000 yards longer and John Daly now hits 300 yards.  He thought the change is what made golf special, it was a game that evolved with each new generation.  Harry would constantly point out differences in courses he played as a pro and how very different they were in the late 1980’s, 1990’s to when he played them on tour in the 1920’s and 30’s.  Golf hasn’t changed overnight, it’s evolved over lots of decades, the USGA needs to stop pretending golf started when they started playing and that was the only important time in golf.  

[Majmike]

Just watched replay of GCs Long  Drive  Competition in Kingston.  

One competitor has been able to achieve club head speed of 165 mph using his swing technique.  I wonder what the cronies at USGA & R&A if pros adapt his techniques.  I guess next they will tell us how to swing.   What was  also interesting that winner, Jack Smith, had a normal looking swing with 150mph swing speed  and hit it 408 yds.   

Leave the golf ball alone and let us play. 

 

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, Franc38 said:

Or simply put, take the rules from 1965, add a section for equipment that is "modern" and made with the manufacturers... plus change a few bits and bobs here and there, add a rule for relief from the divots in the fairway and you'll be happy as Larry.

Hahahahaha.  The Rules have been revised 16 times since 1965, you'd throw out most or all of the changes?  Let's look at 1965 rules:

If you move a loose impediment within 1 clublength of your ball, and the ball moves, you add a Penalty Stroke.  If you address the ball by grounding your club, and the ball moves, you get a Penalty Stroke

Drops are made over the shoulder

If you accidentally cause your ball to move, you get a Penalty Stroke

Unplayable Lie, 2 strokes penalty for later or back on the line relief

You may not TOUCH a Loose Impediment in a Hazard or Water Hazard with a club

No mention made of distance measuring, so apparently measuring distance, slope, wind, all are allowed

Just a few of the things that have changed in the last 60 years.

Edited December 14, 2023 by DaveP043

[HikingMike]

15 hours ago, chisag said:

... I did a fun little experiment today. I had my 81 yr old pard hit 2 shots off every tee that he used a driver. One ball was a Kirkland V3, the ball he normally plays. The other ball was an illegal Yellow MG Senior ball that exceeds the initial velocity standard. According to MG "Hit it Past Your Buddies! Start Enjoying Golf Again with the MG Senior Ball." I thought Chris would be a great sample because he plays from the forward tees, is usually very accurate and shoots his age regularly. Ball #1 is the Kirkland and Ball #2 is the illegal MG. 

#1 +10yds

#2 + 1yd

#2 +15yds

#1 +5yds

#1 and #2 side by side

#1 +20

#1 +15

#2 +2

#1 +1

#2 +5

#1 +7

#1 +3

... As unscientific and anecdotal as it gets but for the average Am that hits the ball 180-200 off the tee the results were much more dependent on quality of swing/strike than which ball is technically "longer". You could certainly make the argument that the differences between his longer and shorter drives would be outliers but I would counter with, isn't that they way most Am's hit their drivers during any given round? It did seem like only one hole where the drives looked like the same trajectory and were hit in the same spot and they both traveled the same distance and were almost touching. 187yds.

... I do not post this as proof of anything other than a fun little experiment about the effect of a rolled back ball on Am's that may lose 5yds when hit by a robot. 

This is awesome. Well done to you and Chris. Tell him thanks for us

The average turned out to be the Kirkland had more distance by 3.17 yards if I'm reading and calculating right. Is the MG normal size? I wonder if he'd do better with one that's smaller diameter.

[StrokerAce]

I just play golf because I enjoy the activity and being outside on the course. I'll work around whatever limits they put on the game.

For example, if they didn't increase the size of the driver heads back in 2004 I'd still be playing with the older size. If for some reason the USGA reduces the COR limit and you can't get as much spring effect off the face, I'd still be playing. If they outlawed graphite shafts, I'd still be playing.

I think it's cool to play the same thing as professionals. Basketball hoops are 10 feet for everyone and courts are 94 feet. 

I guess I don't understand what all the hubbub is about. 

[HikingMike]

14 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But on top of that the data doesn’t support there’s a problem and it contradicts the ruling bodies data and position.

[HikingMike]

11 hours ago, Bob Pegram said:

Drivers longer than 48 inches tend to spray the ball so badly that even that limit could be abolished. In real golf (not long drive competitions) drivers over 48 inches are more of a liability. They would work only for extremely tall golfers - 6'6" or more.

If they didn't limit driver head size, then maybe we would be swinging 48 inch drivers by now that had even bigger heads. If they have the same forgiveness, why not get more clubhead speed with the longer club? Although there will probably be more spray at some point due to the flatter swing plane of a longer club.

So if you work back from that, the higher forgiveness of big driver heads has allowed longer clubs.

4 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Considering the longest guys still hit their woods 300 yards and dj with an ill fitted persimmon driver and modern ball hit it 300, the size of the club for the pros isn’t going to make distance any less of a concern for the ruling bodies.

Any comparison on dispersion? I imagine it's worse with a persimmon driver. And what about consistency? If they hit 50 drives, does DJ still get a 300 yard average with the persimmon? You need to take that into account before claiming the size of the club isn't a factor.

[chisag]

23 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

This is awesome. Well done to you and Chris. Tell him thanks for us

The average turned out to be the Kirkland had more distance by 3.17 yards if I'm reading and calculating right. Is the MG normal size? I wonder if he'd do better with one that's smaller diameter.

 

... According to MG the ball is legal in every way and dimension other than initial velocity. I have to admit it wasn't a good driving day for Chris as he is usually more consistent but it was typical of a slightly off day for him. What we found is exactly what I thought we'd find, swing and contact are much more determinant than what ball he played. I think most mid and certainly high index Am's won't find any difference at all in a ball that if what is being reported is close to accurate, 5-7 yds less on perfectly struck drives. Maybe even less for an 85mph swing. Considering a 1" on the toe strike can lose 20-28yds and many hit their drivers there more than the center, and certainly .5 inches on the toe losing 10-14 yds is much more a factor than the balls initial velocity.

... Sure that one drive you hit perfectly and wonder why you can't do that every time might be 5-7 yds shorter. But the vast majority of drives won't be any different at all. Again anecdotal and only one round so I am not trying to talk anyone suffering great gnashing of teeth out of being outraged if that's your thing, but I do think it should reduce some of the fear out of what a ball rollback may do to your game that may or may not happen 6 years from now. 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by chisag

[RickyBobby_PR]

42 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Data isn’t an opinion. Denying the data because you don’t like what is says is an opinion without merit.

[RickyBobby_PR]

33 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

If they didn't limit driver head size, then maybe we would be swinging 48 inch drivers by now that had even bigger heads. If they have the same forgiveness, why not get more clubhead speed with the longer club? Although there will probably be more spray at some point due to the flatter swing plane of a longer club.

So if you work back from that, the higher forgiveness of big driver heads has allowed longer clubs.

Any comparison on dispersion? I imagine it's worse with a persimmon driver. And what about consistency? If they hit 50 drives, does DJ still get a 300 yard average with the persimmon? You need to take that into account before claiming the size of the club isn't a factor.

Go look up the video and see if it went offline or not and when the r&d guys get a chance to tweak the build dispersion won’t be an issue and within what these guys expect. Especially when they can pair it with a shaft that works for the golfers swing 

[HikingMike]

3 hours ago, Pkc said:

Guess my biggest issue is why now, when Nicolas played everyone complained about how easy it was for them and how far they hit.  But instead of changes rules, the outgoing crowd was interested in seeing where technology takes the game.  The US Open in 1901 at Myopia Hunt Club was barely 6,000 yards, this year it was over 7,400 yards.  Courses didn’t gain 1,400 yards overnight, it slowly happened over decades.  My instructor in high school and college was Lighthouse Harry Cooper, he lived through many eras of golf and I stayed friends with him until he passed away in 2000.  He always joked about how much easier and better equipment was from when he was on tour in the 1920’s and 30’s.  Instead of being upset about it, he loved how it was making golf more accessible and with graphite shafts he was excited to be able to swing a club again.  Thanks to its light weight and not bothering his arthritis or joints as much.  He looked forward to what was next in golf, instead of criticizing that golf courses are a 1,000 yards longer and John Daly now hits 300 yards.  He thought the change is what made golf special, it was a game that evolved with each new generation.  Harry would constantly point out differences in courses he played as a pro and how very different they were in the late 1980’s, 1990’s to when he played them on tour in the 1920’s and 30’s.  Golf hasn’t changed overnight, it’s evolved over lots of decades, the USGA needs to stop pretending golf started when they started playing and that was the only important time in golf.  

Great points. Maybe this kind of thing should've been done a long time ago. We would be using less materials, equipment, and labor on golf courses. Costs would be a lot lower. Maybe more people would be golfing. But there's definitely a fun factor in hitting longer. If everybody in the game and standards bodies would have been considering this thoughtfully and continuously throughout the years, everyone would have to figure out where they want the balance. 

Right now people have more concern about sustainability. Water shortages, droughts, restrictions happen a lot more often in western US states than before. People care about land usage more as humanity now uses way more land. The one good thing is that golf courses are "natural-ish" land. And inequality, at least in the US, is a lot higher than it was in the past - and this is where costs factor in. I know your question was probably rhetorical there, but I'm throwing out ideas.

You said courses are 1,000 yards longer. What is that in area? 1,000 yards by say 100 yards = 100,000 square yards = 20.7 acres. That's a lot! Thought experiment - imagine in urban areas, we could have a 20 acre park next to every golf course with the same area. Or a golf course that has a house development around it could have a ton more house lots on the same property, like 40 or something, which would mean serious $$$. Or a country club could potentially have a pool, tennis courts, all kinds of extra stuff in the same area it would with only a golf course at the longer course yardage. New golf courses could fit places that they can't currently. There are lots of ways to think about that. 

[BigBoiGolf]

The only change I can see that would make drivers (and other long clubs) way harder to hit competently, without affecting their size, would be to remove bulge and roll completely and make their faces flat.

8 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Data isn’t an opinion. Denying the data because you don’t like what is says is an opinion without merit.

I'm going to be quite frank, this "debate" is 1 side providing technical and mathematical analysis on the issue, and the other side is just crossing their fingers hoping this magically will be solved by 2028. Oh, and that side admits this won't ever be solved, because it's a poorly defined objective with vague requirements. Man, sounds almost like the unrealistic coworkers at my job!

Sorry guys, the real world doesn't work that way. Corn doesn't just sprout out of the ground and walk itself to the grocery display at Walmart eagerly awaiting you to pick it up, go through the magic scanner that knows just how much money to take out of your account, and ride along with you home in your magical car that magically gets gasoline from the pump.

Also, it's just way too hard to rewrite the rules based on a rulebook I can order off Amazon, it's too hard to for professional tours to maybe consider forming an equipment committee that's staffed by the pro tours and the equipment manufacturers themselves, in order to develop standards. Man, almost sounds like IEEE.

Oh well! Never been tried before! See you in 2030!

[HikingMike]

11 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Data isn’t an opinion. Denying the data because you don’t like what is says is an opinion without merit.

I'm not denying any data. I like data. Give me all the data.

You said -

Quote

But on top of that the data doesn’t support there’s a problem and it contradicts the ruling bodies data and position.

My opinion - there is a distance problem. Now how does the data refute that? It doesn't. It is subjective. You and plenty of other people disagree, and that is an equally valid position. How long do we want people to hit golf balls? Is there a right and wrong answer? No there isn't. Your comments are very absolute, black-and-white, when as a whole this is a subjective topic.

[BigBoiGolf]

14 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

My opinion - there is a distance problem. Now how does the data refute that? It doesn't. It is subjective. You and plenty of other people disagree, and that is an equally valid position. How long do we want people to hit golf balls? Is there a right and wrong answer? No there isn't. Your comments are very absolute, black-and-white, when as a whole this is a subjective topic.

It doesn't work like this and I'm tired of explaining it. YOU guys are saying there is a distance problem. YOU need to prove it's a problem objectively and not based on your hunch. Because YOU want to FORCE private entities to spend untold thousands to possibly millions of dollars, thousands of man hours in work to acquise to these demands, and all of this is going to end up not affecting people better than myself because we have to keep providing the math that states that.

The scoring average has barely dropped 1.5 shots in almost 40 years on the PGA Tour with EVERY technical, nutritional, and training advancement and statistical analysis known to man being thrown at it. It's a literal joke. The Tours have stated there is no problem. The manufacturers have stated there is no problem. The vast majority of players have stated there is no problem, and the vast golf public has stated there is no problem.
 

What else do you want us to tell you?

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by BigBoiGolf

[Bob Pegram]

1 hour ago, HikingMike said:

If they didn't limit driver head size, then maybe we would be swinging 48 inch drivers by now that had even bigger heads. If they have the same forgiveness, why not get more clubhead speed with the longer club? Although there will probably be more spray at some point due to the flatter swing plane of a longer club.

So if you work back from that, the higher forgiveness of big driver heads has allowed longer clubs.

Any comparison on dispersion? I imagine it's worse with a persimmon driver. And what about consistency? If they hit 50 drives, does DJ still get a 300 yard average with the persimmon? You need to take that into account before claiming the size of the club isn't a factor.

I agree that the large head size and head weighting adjustments it allows in manufacturing make a big difference. I took a long time experimenting with long drivers. I ended up with a 47 inch driver that I hit no farther than a shorter driver, but I hit it much more accurately because it fit my swing better. I could use my natural swing and was more consistent. My swing is not upright. It also eliminated any back issues because I was turning somewhat more horizontally like the back is designed to perform. My average drive is longer only because I hit more fairways with it and so the roll is more than landing in the rough. I haven't been playing much lately and it is becoming harder to hit straight. It requires regular play and/or practice. A 46 inch driver I made is easier to hit straight. I can't go shorter than that without accuracy and back problems.

[Bob Pegram]

26 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Great points. Maybe this kind of thing should've been done a long time ago. We would be using less materials, equipment, and labor on golf courses. Costs would be a lot lower. Maybe more people would be golfing. But there's definitely a fun factor in hitting longer. If everybody in the game and standards bodies would have been considering this thoughtfully and continuously throughout the years, everyone would have to figure out where they want the balance. 

Right now people have more concern about sustainability. Water shortages, droughts, restrictions happen a lot more often in western US states than before. People care about land usage more as humanity now uses way more land. The one good thing is that golf courses are "natural-ish" land. And inequality, at least in the US, is a lot higher than it was in the past - and this is where costs factor in. I know your question was probably rhetorical there, but I'm throwing out ideas.

You said courses are 1,000 yards longer. What is that in area? 1,000 yards by say 100 yards = 100,000 square yards = 20.7 acres. That's a lot! Thought experiment - imagine in urban areas, we could have a 20 acre park next to every golf course with the same area. Or a golf course that has a house development around it could have a ton more house lots on the same property, like 40 or something, which would mean serious $$$. Or a country club could potentially have a pool, tennis courts, all kinds of extra stuff in the same area it would with only a golf course at the longer course yardage. New golf courses could fit places that they can't currently. There are lots of ways to think about that. 

Parks don't generate income for a city. Golf courses do. Houses sell for more when near (especially facing) a golf course. The difference may be less (or non-existent) than you think.

[RickyBobby_PR]

19 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

I'm not denying any data. I like data. Give me all the data.

You said -

My opinion - there is a distance problem. Now how does the data refute that? It doesn't. It is subjective. You and plenty of other people disagree, and that is an equally valid position. How long do we want people to hit golf balls? Is there a right and wrong answer? No there isn't. Your comments are very absolute, black-and-white, when as a whole this is a subjective topic.

That clearly states distance isn’t an issue. It’s not subjective. What’s subjective is saying the pros hit the ball too far or that the ball goes too far or that courses are being made obsolete by the pros.

The ball goes as far as golfer is capable of hitting and has a limit on it. The pros hit it to far in relation to what? Years prior? Not in the last 20 years of the same specs. Father than the pros in the 90s? Yeah different ball, different clubs, different type of golfer. But the ball went father in the 90s than the 80, the 70s and so on. Courses aren’t obsolete, that’s a preference for some people that don’t like seeing lower scores than previous eras, that don’t like seeing pros who spend their whole lives working hard on their game be able to take advantage of the skill of hitting far. Not liking the modern game is just an opinion and nothing more. 
 

 

[RickyBobby_PR]

36 minutes ago, HikingMike said:

Right now people have more concern about sustainability. Water shortages, droughts, restrictions happen a lot more often in western US states than before. People care about land usage more as humanity now uses way more land. The one good thing is that golf courses are "natural-ish" land. And inequality, at least in the US, is a lot higher than it was in the past - and this is where costs factor in. I know your question was probably rhetorical there, but I'm throwing out ideas.

Courses aren’t going to shrink because the ruling bodies roll the ball back. Land is a commodity and the property owners will keep it and they will maintain it. Courses aren’t going to move tee boxes way up, tour events won’t either nor will the courses they choose cut back on the land usage. The rollback solves none of the supposed sustainability concerns 

[DaveP043]

11 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

The scoring average has barely dropped 1.5 shots in almost 40 years on the PGA Tour with EVERY technical, nutritional, and training advancement and statistical analysis known to man being thrown at it. It's a literal joke.

You should note that the average playing length on tour has increased by about 300 yards over that same 40 year period, yet scores have gone down.  Whether that's a "problem" or not, I make no claim, but one statistic without the other might be misleading.

[RickyBobby_PR]

35 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

I'm going to be quite frank, this "debate" is 1 side providing technical and mathematical analysis on the issue, and the other side is just crossing their fingers hoping this magically will be solved by 2028. Oh, and that side admits this won't ever be solved, because it's a poorly defined objective with vague requirements. Man, sounds almost like the unrealistic coworkers at my job!

 

Exactly. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

You should note that the average playing length on tour has increased by about 300 yards over that same 40 year period, yet scores have gone down.  Whether that's a "problem" or not, I make no claim, but one statistic without the other might be misleading.

Scoring average has dropped by 2 strokes in that time and less than 1 in the last 20 years.  Not an issue

[Bob Pegram]

5 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I’m waiting for the day. The change for the 48” length was another dumb decision by the ruling bodies. Had no effect on distance whatsoever and the number of people in tour looking to use it was less than 5. Another example of the ruling bodies doing something that did nothing and allows them to pat themselves on the back and say we did something to control the distance gains

If you do the math (the ratio of club length to height), with the optional 46 inch maximum club length it is impossible for a 6 footer to swing the same as a 5'9" golfer using a 45 inch driver. The same ratio of 5'9" (69 inches) in height to a 45 inch driver is 6 feet (72 inches) to a 46.96 inch driver. That is probably why a 47 inch driver fits me so well. I don't have an upright swing. My swing plane is relatively standard as far as tilt is concerned.

[BigBoiGolf]

16 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

You should note that the average playing length on tour has increased by about 300 yards over that same 40 year period, yet scores have gone down.  Whether that's a "problem" or not, I make no claim, but one statistic without the other might be misleading.

Uh yeah, because 300 / 18 is 16 yards, or for the pros 1 club. 1 club isn't going to have some disastorous effect on the best golfers to ever walk the planet.

But to counter your point, green speeds have also tremendously gone up, Augusta in 77 was ~8 and today is 12 and sometimes can reach as high as 15, but hey I guess I need to point that out otherwise that's "misleading". Iron lofts have also gone down. The 52 PW and 40 7 iron is no more. Turns out physics doesn't actually change in 50 years, so lower loft hits the ball farther.

Don't worry, I'll go fetch even more data, don't wanna be "misleading" people here.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, BigBoiGolf said:

Uh yeah, because 300 / 18 is 16 yards, or for the pros 1 club. 1 club isn't going to have some disastorous effect on the best golfers to ever walk the planet.

Course rating procedures suggest that 300 yards should add about 1.3 strokes in "scratch player difficulty", which suggests that the scoring improvement may actually be close to double your 1.5 strokes, when "difficulty" is considered.  Increased driving distance is without question part of that 3 stroke improvement.  Again, whether that's a "problem" is subjective.