Is the game of golf evolving? And is the evolution good?

[cnosil]

I was reading an article about baseball and that teams are using an intentional balk in extra innings when they are up by 2 runs and a man is on second.  The reasoning is that they want to move the player to 3rd to avoid sign stealing and the on base player is essentially meaningless.  Golf and golf strategy has evolved as well:

•  launch monitors have disproven the old ball flight laws.  
• Strokes gained metrics are showing that distance is more important than accuracy.  
• Lessons approaches have changed from in person watch the ball flight to video swing analysis to leveraging launch monitors and even online instruction.
• Equipment is now fit to the player based on swing dynamics.  
• don’t lay up to specific distances 

The game is changing but is it changing for the good and how do these changes impact you and the way you play the game.

[RickyBobby_PR]

I don’t have any issues with how the game is changing. Technology and its use in strategy is changing how teams or individuals gameplan. While not on the same level sports changes when teams began recording practice and games, then like in football in game photos sent from the booth to the sidelines showing formations, movements, etc.

The online vs in person lessons/coaching IMO is a good thing. It gives more access to good instructors for golfers and usually at a better price than in person for that instructor or even ones in the golfers area. Also good for the instructor as they can grow their client base and increase their earnings while also not being limited by Mother Nature.

Even with all technology and evolution one still needs to have good fundamentals

[BostonSal]

The game isn't evolving nearly as fast  recently as it has evolved over my lifetime.

We can leave the flagstick in now but we don't have to.  I like that.

We can drop, take a two stroke penalty, and hit four instead of going all the way back to the tee when we knock one into the woods and can't find it.

That's ok, I guess.

You almost have to sell an organ to buy a dozen Pro V1s.

[ I just priced a new set of clubs and bag on TGW for $3816.91---and went economical on the driver.]

But that's small stuff.

Look what happened over a longer period of time/

We've gone from balata   to balata or surlyn     to   surlyn or urethane.

[  Simultaneously from wound    to wound or non-wound   to entirely non-wound.] 

We've gone from forged carbon steel to cast stainless steel and now to  multi-piece construction of irons.

We've gone from persimmon or laminated maple     to metal    to metal / exotic fiber...and up to a whopping 460cc... with "woods"

We've got hybrids.

A Wilson Staff DynaPowered   5-iron had 32º  loft in the 1950s and 1960s.

A Wilson Staff D7  5-iron has 24.5º of loft now.    That would cause notice if you just awakened from a long coma.

The explosion of working class golf in 1he 1960s seems to have dissipated as the game gradually becomes more elitist again due to cost.

 

I don't know if the game is better, worse, or essentially the same but peripherally different.

I've missed steel spikes for a long time, though. 

[CRW]

When it comes to what you have listed I picked evolving/good.  

However, it seems other areas are evolving in a bad way. Specifically, the types of clientele and their lack of respect for the property when playing and their heckling when watching at tour events.  Anyone who yells anything after a shot at a tour event should automatically be ejected from the premises.  

[cnosil]

9 minutes ago, CRW said:

When it comes to what you have listed I picked evolving/good.  

However, it seems other areas are evolving in a bad way. Specifically, the types of clientele and their lack of respect for the property when playing and their heckling when watching at tour events.  Anyone who yells anything after a shot at a tour event should automatically be ejected from the premises.  

Don’t disagree but I was more interested in peoples strategy and approach for how they play.  Kind of looking at the I want to hit iron and hit the fairway crowd over hitting it longer and maybe getting into trouble.   Understand that some people struggle with certain clubs.  

[MaxEntropy]

4 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Don’t disagree but I was more interested in peoples strategy and approach for how they play.  Kind of looking at the I want to hit iron and hit the fairway crowd over hitting it longer and maybe getting into trouble.   Understand that some people struggle with certain clubs.  

That's my problem. My distance off the tee is an advantage, but accuracy a disadvantage. There are times a 3W or hybrid is a smart play (or really the only play), but I'm sure there are times I pull a driver where it may be a mistake. On the other hand, I made a concerted effort this year to hit MORE drivers instead of less (if nothing else, to try to figure it out), and my scoring average on my league course is down and my league handicap is down. How much of that improvement is me slowly self-correcting with a better fitting driver versus getting a little better on approach, etc. or is it the long-term statistics of strokes gained with, on average, shorter approaches helping me out. Hard to say, but I'm likely to keep doing it.

[BostonSal]

2 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

 On the other hand, I made a concerted effort this year to hit MORE drivers instead of less.

Please hit a few extra for me, Max. 

 

I hit driver on three holes--these holes have safe landing areas approximately the size of Jacksonville--

and I wear out my driving iron everyplace else.

Every time that I take myself out of a hole on the very first shot,

I wish that I were skinny enough to try the tennis courts.

I'm told that there are lots of horny old widows hanging out over there.

 

 

[DiscipleofPenick]

Information is evolving, but I don't know how much the game is. Club & ball rules haven't changed in a long time, so manufacturers have to work within those confines. It's up to players and their coaches/fitters to figure out what works best using the evolving information capture tech.

I do think Strokes Gained is a bunch of jank for non-tour/high level am players.

[JerryB]

I'm new to the game so I can't speak about the evolution and strokes gained and stuff, but I do know this:

[JerryB]

On a more serious note, the game is absolutely evolving.  We've witnessed it in baseball with the push towards "three true outcomes": walk, strikeout, homerun.  Its happening in basketball where layups and threes are king.  Golf seems to be turning into more of a long drive competition.  Is this all making the games "easier" or more efficient?  Absolutely.  Are these things making the games "better?"  That's debatable and in the eye of the beholder. 

More information is always better and the internet helps makes that info much easier to access.  I believe the bigger issue is how people interpret that data.  Like others have mentioned, I'm hitting it farther than before and my scores are dropping.  Does that mean distance is king, or am I just getting better at golf (ie, fewer chunks and such)?

[Shankster]

Yea. The game is evolving.  I like technology as much as anyone... 

The evolution that I don’t like has been mentioned already.  Plus a few other things that will just start an argument, so.  
 

Other.

[GolfSpy TCB]

1 minute ago, Shankster said:

Plus a few other things that will just start an argument, so.

+1

 

Evolving.. Yes.  

better or worse?  IIWII.

Unless you are still playing Eye-O-Matics, Dyna-Powereds, a Bulls Eye and a Dunlop 65.....  you are a part of the evolution.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Tiftaaft

[DaveP043]

I voted "other".  The game is evolving, and evolution is natural, so my feelings are fairly neutral.  Looking back several hundred years I can see huge changes, I'm not sure that the more recent changes are all that significant.  Take away the top 0.01% of golfers, the rest of us are playing pretty much the same game as anyone has over the past 50 years or so.  We're not hitting it a lot longer, we're not playing a lot better (or worse), we still have slow players and fast players, good players and not-so-good players.  The "science of golf" changes seem natural to me, people have always been looking for a little edge, technology and statistics are developing tools to help them along the way.  

[MaxEntropy]

19 hours ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

I do think Strokes Gained is a bunch of jank for non-tour/high level am players.

I understand your perspective, but don't entirely agree - I just think that us non-pros/scratch golfers need to understand that it may take a lot longer for the statistics to work out in our favor and in some cases it might not ever help due to circumstances (aging, injuries, etc.). Now that I have over 2 years worth of data in Arccos, I see that my 3W dispersion off the tee is only 3 yards less than my driver dispersion, on average. If I ever need a really accurate tee shot, I need to get down to my 4H before my dispersion off the tee gets good enough to make much of a difference. At that point, I am giving up 60 - 80 yards of distance. Depending on the hole layout/length, it may make zero sense to NOT pull driver. The problem is, I know this, so I probably err to the side of being aggressive more than I should, which is why we've spent so much time talking strategy while we've played together.

[THEZIPR23]

20 hours ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

I do think Strokes Gained is a bunch of jank for non-tour/high level am players.

Would love to hear the reasoning behind this thought?

[THEZIPR23]

Everything has changed as technology has advanced. If you look at what the launch monitors did to the game just based on ball flight laws its a little mind blowing. I think the progression is natural and trying to stop progress is usually a slow march to death. Baseball has been mentioned and it is in a weird place right now. There are parts of the old ballgame that I definitely miss. The curious part for me is what happens with the next generation of golfers or the one after that and where is the breaking point. 

[DaveP043]

11 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

The curious part for me is what happens with the next generation of golfers or the one after that and where is the breaking point. 

The breaking point was the innovation of the gutta percha ball, or the end of hickory shafts, or the invention in-ground irrigation systems, or.....

We've had breaking points in golf for centuries, and the game is still doing just fine.

[THEZIPR23]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The breaking point was the innovation of the gutta percha ball, or the end of hickory shafts, or the invention in-ground irrigation systems, or.....

We've had breaking points in golf for centuries, and the game is still doing just fine.

I get that but there is still a point from a speed perspective that faster won't equal better. That is the breaking point I was referring to. 

[DiscipleofPenick]

6 hours ago, MaxEntropy said:

I understand your perspective, but don't entirely agree - I just think that us non-pros/scratch golfers need to understand that it may take a lot longer for the statistics to work out in our favor and in some cases it might not ever help due to circumstances (aging, injuries, etc.). Now that I have over 2 years worth of data in Arccos, I see that my 3W dispersion off the tee is only 3 yards less than my driver dispersion, on average. If I ever need a really accurate tee shot, I need to get down to my 4H before my dispersion off the tee gets good enough to make much of a difference. At that point, I am giving up 60 - 80 yards of distance. Depending on the hole layout/length, it may make zero sense to NOT pull driver. The problem is, I know this, so I probably err to the side of being aggressive more than I should, which is why we've spent so much time talking strategy while we've played together.

Right , and even though Arrcos has strokes gained data, I don't necessarily consider what your doing with it Strokes Gained. To me, you are using technology, probably the best way the game has advanced, to better understand your misses and strengths. You're not focused on a number that your 9i is .6 strokes worse than whatever blah blah. 

Not my term, but I think this falls under the Strokes Shaved. This is just understanding your game and making smart s*** selections in the moment. Like the driver vs. 3w example, if you miss them both about the same, it make sense to just rip the driver, unless it's a very short, tight hole where backing off to the iron doesn't cost you.

Like for me, I don't need some fancy formula to know I should hit more greens. I can just look at my stats on GHIN and see how low the number is and know I gotta work on my irons.

[Stuka44]

17 hours ago, DiscipleofPenick said:

Right , and even though Arrcos has strokes gained data, I don't necessarily consider what your doing with it Strokes Gained. To me, you are using technology, probably the best way the game has advanced, to better understand your misses and strengths. You're not focused on a number that your 9i is .6 strokes worse than whatever blah blah. 

Not my term, but I think this falls under the Strokes Shaved. This is just understanding your game and making smart s*** selections in the moment. Like the driver vs. 3w example, if you miss them both about the same, it make sense to just rip the driver, unless it's a very short, tight hole where backing off to the iron doesn't cost you.

Like for me, I don't need some fancy formula to know I should hit more greens. I can just look at my stats on GHIN and see how low the number is and know I gotta work on my irons.

I have to agree with this assessment.  I don't want to start an argument, but some of strokes gained just doesn't apply to weekend hacks (and I'm talking about myself).  I know with 100 percent certainty(regardless of what strokes gained may say) that my chances of hitting many more  crap shots, ones which may only make it half way to the green is exponentially higher from 145 yards in 4 inches of rough (8I), than it is from 155 yards in the fairway with my 7I.

The one part of Strokes Gained that Brodie's book did make clear to me, and I think applies to all golfers is the knowledge that I don't care how good you are, on any putt over 10 feet your only real focus should be to not 3 putt, period.  If you want to make more putts, those are going to come in the sub 8 foot distance, practice those.

I did read Brodie's book.  Don't forget when speaking of dispersion, and all that shot link data for the pros, that your drive (and every other shot) likely has a  zero percent chance of being stopped by a spectator, before it bounds into the woods, costing you a stroke to get back into play, and my pitching wedge crap shot skull, from the hardpan underneath a tree, has an equally high zero percent chance at being stopped by the grandstand behind the green.  I'm going to continue to make good common sense decisions, and most often error on the side of  giving up some distance in order to play from the short grass.

Edited September 11, 2021 by stuka44
add line

[Firebird]

Over the last 10-15 years there has been minimal changes in equipment buy massive evolution in technology. When the Pro V1 was release in 2006 (i think) it was the first ball the reach the maximum speed allowed. Interestingly I have seen reviews that compare the latest Pro V1 with the original and the difference was minimal. The main change with regard to drivers and fairway woods is adjustable Hosels, if you look at reviews comparing for example the M1 verses the Sim 2 it will depend of the golfer which is better, but again the difference in distance is almost identical. The biggest innovation in equipment  has been the introduction of hybrids, but again this plateaued  5-6 years ago.

As far as Technology well that is an individual thing. Things like Trackman makes it easier for golf shots to provide lessons where before you really need to be on course or at a driving range, laser and GPS range finders should in theory speed up golf and it is simple to know your distance, but for some reason it they don't. One of the biggest issues I see with technology is the data overload. The amount of information that you can get is truly amazing but the majority of people do not have the skill level to utilise it, yet alone understand it. I like some technology and are looking forward to testing Arccos, it will be interesting to see what potential impact it may have on my game.    

[2puttbogey]

The whole strokes gained thing is fool’s gold. Data is good, but wh3n your variability is so large it won’t make a difference. Strokes gained will tell you to hit it far off the tee, but in reality for most keeping it in play is the best thing for you. Of course if the ball is further it gives you an advantage, wad this really a revelation? For mid to high handicap players the wasted strokes ( penalty, duffs, bad speed on lag putts that lead to 3 putts) cost way more strokes than the fractions that are gained with distance.

[Kansas King]

I think the whole evolution of golf is a positive. My fear is that golf is going to turn into hive mind mentality regarding strokes gained and some other metrics. Strokes gained is a good metric but golf is a sport where every shot has unique circumstances and a data derived strategy isn't going to always be the correct answer. I wholeheartedly agree that distance helps, A LOT, however. The distance/accuracy question is going to be different on every course and that is going to be up to the individual golfer to determine. 

Regarding equipment, golf really hasn't changed to much the last couple years. I think pros have gotten dramatically stronger and better the last 15 years. There aren't many high level PGA pros left that don't look like a professional athlete. Athletics and fitness has officially caught up with golf. Technology has helped with distance some but for almost all golfers, the 460cc clubhead and CT limits all but certainly put a cap on technology gains. For many, the last place to gain performance from clubs is to get a proper fitting. Physical performance and club fitting have been known attributes for good golf for decades but it seems these two things have only really picked up steam the last couple years. 

I don't really know where golf goes from here. I think data will continue to become a bigger thing as it should be. Ultimately, being able to incorporate an individual's personal playing data with a club fitting will really help bridge the gap between strokes gained and real world needs. I think data will also go a long way in club design and maybe even being able to prove what designs work better and why. I think we have a good grasp on club design but I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions on golfers lean towards certain designs even if they aren't the most forgiving. I personally think there are certain ways the brain perceives feel that can't be solely explained with physics. I think more data could potentially provide some insights on this front. 

The other frontier in golf that is changing is how golf is experienced. Is Topgolf going to have a material impact on the golf industry? Are indoor simulators going to impact golf? These are going to be interesting areas to watch develop further. I personally think these avenues are only going to bring more people into the game as it gives people a way to experience golf without having to go through the arduous process of playing your first round on an actual course and trying find or rent equipment. 

Overall, I think the future of golf will be strong. My only fears are the rules of golf, especially regarding equipment, getting mucked up by manufacturers. I don't like the idea of bifurcation and think that golf is best if played equally from top to bottom. I'm fine with little rules changes for pace of play or simplification. However, I don't like the idea of different equipment for different levels of golf. 

[DaveP043]

14 hours ago, 2puttbogey said:

The whole strokes gained thing is fool’s gold. Data is good, but wh3n your variability is so large it won’t make a difference

Strokes Gained evaluations will also help you choose a point to aim at, with the goal of limiting really bad outcomes.  A good player should aim a little bit away from trouble, a wilder player should aim substantially further from that trouble.  That could mean aiming at the edge of a fairway, or even the edge of the woods.  But the goal isn't ZERO balls OB or in a Penalty Area, if you do that you're aiming too far from the trouble.  Really good data can help you chart the optimal path around a golf course, to shoot the lowest possible scores without actually improving your skills.

[2puttbogey]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Strokes Gained evaluations will also help you choose a point to aim at, with the goal of limiting really bad outcomes.  A good player should aim a little bit away from trouble, a wilder player should aim substantially further from that trouble.  That could mean aiming at the edge of a fairway, or even the edge of the woods.  But the goal isn't ZERO balls OB or in a Penalty Area, if you do that you're aiming too far from the trouble.  Really good data can help you chart the optimal path around a golf course, to shoot the lowest possible scores without actually improving your skills.

That’s course management not strokes gained metrics. Yes I know that what you stated is in the book, but you need to know a lot more than how many strokes that are being gained or lost. The number is meaningless it’s up to the individual to understand their game. It doesn’t take some revelation and studying of data to figure out that going OB is bad and that in a game that the object is to get a ball in a hole that it’s advantageous to be closer to the hole. 

[cnosil]

8 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

That’s course management not strokes gained metrics. Yes I know that what you stated is in the book, but you need to know a lot more than how many strokes that are being gained or lost. The number is meaningless it’s up to the individual to understand their game. It doesn’t take some revelation and studying of data to figure out that going OB is bad and that in a game that the object is to get a ball in a hole that it’s advantageous to be closer to the hole. 

Strokes gained provides the supporting information for course management.   IMO, Strokes gained helps you understand that maybe you shouldn't try to thread that ball through the trees and get up to the green;  you need to pitch out.  People don't know how to apply the numbers beyond the I personally lost or gained strokes against some level of player.   Strokes gained sets expectations and from there you need to evaluate where your next shot should be played.  It isn't about what is bad,  but what is good. 

[2puttbogey]

5 minutes ago, cnosil said:

Strokes gained provides the supporting information for course management.   IMO, Strokes gained helps you understand that maybe you shouldn't try to thread that ball through the trees and get up to the green;  you need to pitch out.  People don't know how to apply the numbers beyond the I personally lost or gained strokes against some level of player.   Strokes gained sets expectations and from there you need to evaluate where your next shot should be played.  It isn't about what is bad,  but what is good. 

So DECADE

[THEZIPR23]

32 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

 The number is meaningless it’s up to the individual to understand their game. 

This is the ENTIRE point of SG. I can't tell you the amount of people I have come across who think that putting equals 40% of their game. There is a huge difference between 40% of strokes and 40% of score. That's the genius of SG. 

[cnosil]

17 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

So DECADE

DECADE is a system that applies strokes gained.   What I described is a very small part of DECADE.   What I described is expectation management.

[DaveP043]

27 minutes ago, 2puttbogey said:

So DECADE

DECADE is a direct follow-up to Strokes Gained.  As I understand it, DECADE offers the data collection and evaluation, and applies Strokes Gained to offer "advice" tailored to specific individuals and their games.