Golf’s distance problem (or not)

[THEZIPR23]

On 4/23/2022 at 6:28 AM, fixyurdivot said:

Using The Masters as an example, average winning scores have been trending lower since 1934.  The average from 1934-1989 was -7.29.  From 1990-2009, it averaged -10.72 (a 32% increase), and from 2010 to present, -11.56 (+7%). To what extent this is hitting length related is hard to say for sure but we do know that hitting length throughout the bag has increased, so it stands to reason it is a primary factor. 

The rather significant change in scoring coincides with a period where significant equipment changes took place.  With those major material and design improvements now cooked into equipment, the gains are considerably less - as we see in the product cycle tests. Maybe I'm wrong here, but the "swoled era" didn't really get rolling until about 2010 and I suspect it is mostly responsible for gains since then.  Take a look at players physiques from decades ago and today - big difference. How much more distance can be gained across the field from physical strength training, I dunno... but suspect not that much.  So presuming equipment has pretty much has plateaued, that leaves physical size, strength and swing mechanics as the opportunity for further average hitting length gains... and I don't think their is much meat left on that bone. Yeah, ok, Harry Higgs, Jason Dufner, Beef, and Lowery aside ...

Augusta National has been making changes to the course in attempt to throttle the gains in length and seem to have done a pretty good job. We've discussed many other changes to course conditions, in various related threads, that could offset some of the distance.  One that I see as a no brainer is fairway and rough cut lengths. Pool table like fairways that allow considerable rollout does not help. We also have seen recent events where shaggy rough around the greens wreaked havoc on the field and put a dent in scoring.

Ultimately, average scoring is just a score and the number itself doesn't really matter.  What matters (at least for me) is not seeing the pro game become something that does not remotely reflect the game you and I play.  Being able to routinely reach par 5's in two shots isn't our game.  Grabbing a 9i or PW for a second shot on 400+ yard holes isn't our game. 

How much is attributable to course strategy? Seems to get lost in these conversations as the game is played almost a full 180 from the old days. Could be a chicken and egg argument however there is substantial strokes saved now vs then. 

[chisag]

On 4/23/2022 at 6:28 AM, fixyurdivot said:

What matters (at least for me) is not seeing the pro game become something that does not remotely reflect the game you and I play.  Being able to routinely reach par 5's in two shots isn't our game.  Grabbing a 9i or PW for a second shot on 400+ yard holes isn't our game. 

 

... Just opinions of course but to be fair most Pro's have always played a game that isn't our game, although the divide between us and them is getting much wider so I understand and agree with your point. What concerns me is it seems to be routine these days for Pro's to use driver, fairway wood and wedges almost exclusively on all holes but par 3's. The allure of seeing the best players in the world use every club in their bag is almost gone. Watching Tiger hit a low cut or towering draw with a 6 iron from the middle of the fairway has been replaced with a bombed drive and one of 4 wedges that are in a Pro's bag. This is one of the reasons I enjoy watching the LPGA where they still use every club in their bag. 

[BIG STU]

13 hours ago, funkyjudge said:

Amen, Sam! 

At age 73, and following cancer surgery and a subsequent pair of infections from that surgery, I have lost significant distance with all of my clubs over the past couple years. I was already on a serious distance slide prior to the cancer diagnosis close to 5 years ago, and it continues to worsen.  I still play to a handicap index in the 11 to 14 range, and am extremely competitive with players of all ages and handicaps — AS LONG AS I PLAY FROM THE CORRECT TEES FOR MY GAME. Since my average drive goes about 225-230 yards (a really good one might go 245-255, with a bit of wind assistance and firm fairways, but a poor drive could just as easily run-out to 210 yards), I select whatever tees will give a total 18-hole distance of 5,500-5,900 yards.  I hit a 7-iron about 142 yards (carry only), and once I have more than 170-175 yards, I have to hit a hybrid.  It’s not fun to have to hit a perfect 4-wood (I don’t carry a 3-wood) to reach a par-4 … and that is after hitting a very good drive, so I would rather be playing lots of 330 to 385 yard par-4s, with the occasional 300-yarder and the very rare 400-yarder.

Your comments about being realistic regarding a golfer’s AVERAGE distances with each club (not that career-best shot that you hit with that club 2 years ago), and also playing for the occasional long miss — and getting the ball to pin-high with virtually every approach shot — are also spot-on. I almost always take the longer club if I am in-between clubs and I make sure that I easily clear any hazards that are short of the hole, not just barely clear them or force myself to hit an absolutely pure shot to get there.  What I consider my “130 yard club” is not the one that I have to flush to hit that distance, but the one that might go 135 (or even 137) on a perfect hit. If I hit it a little fat, I am still going to get 120+ yards out of it, and that’s not likely to leave me with anything worse than a 30-35 foot putt.

 

First off sorry about your health issues. Seems to me you have adapted and like I relearned to "golf your ball" as the old timers say. Like you stated playing the correct tees for our distances now is the key. From what you posted we have similar distances. And yes on yardages like you I do not choose a club on "flushed yardages" I will back off one club. With me it keeps me from swinging too hard and that is what causes me pain. I still have upper body strength but the back can no longer take the speed and torque. I also learned about the long irons. At one time I was a decent long iron player and can still hit even a 1 iron but I do not try it anymore. I use the 7 & 9 woods which are a game saver for me and are more consistent for me too. I also have the utmost confidence in those 2 clubs. Even in my vintage play I have pulled the long irons out and carry a persimmon 5 & 7 wood. I will admit I am hardheaded and had to learn after several relapses of hurting myself to back off. Now sometimes I do challenge myself but it is part of me disciplining myself. About a month ago I teed it up with a friend wit his son and another Div 2 player from the back tees at a popular course here. I set my goal of breaking 85 from the tips. I stuck to my plan and did not overextend myself. LOL and I about wore my 3 and 7 woods out on the par 4s on approaches and one Par 3 I had to hit a high cut driver. I shot 82 which seems insufficient on face value numbers wise. For me it was a big win. I stuck to my plan of discipline did not push myself and plodded my way around the course. Now I will admit I knew that course well having maybe 50 rounds or more in the 21 years I have been here so I did pre plot my round. My friend was naturally concerned but we agreed he was to jump my butt if he saw me pushing it hard. Never made a birdie even though I had a couple of legit chances but never made a double either. The only relapse I have had in the last 3 months was in the scramble a month ago when it was CPO. I thought I could handle it but I could not. Was sore and hurt the next 3 days. I drew the line for me. For now no CPO golf unless I build myself up more which my goal is in the next year. I am not pushing that either. I am hoping maybe a year down the road to be able to play my 9 hole 7 club vintage rounds walking. 

[BIG STU]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

... Just opinions of course but to be fair most Pro's have always played a game that isn't our game, although the divide between us and them is getting much wider so I understand and agree with your point. What concerns me is it seems to be routine these days for Pro's to use driver, fairway wood and wedges almost exclusively on all holes but par 3's. The allure of seeing the best players in the world use every club in their bag is almost gone. Watching Tiger hit a low cut or towering draw with a 6 iron from the middle of the fairway has been replaced with a bombed drive and one of 4 wedges that are in a Pro's bag. This is one of the reasons I enjoy watching the LPGA where they still use every club in their bag. 

100% correct---- I made a statement the other day at my course that a top ranked Tour player like Scotty, Rahm and DJ could play our course sub par with only 7 clubs or fewer distance wise.  I also noticed a big change in my game. Most of the time I only need a wedge or maybe 8 or 9 iron on a par 5. My GIR stats are better than they have ever been. I actually had to practice my wedges hard yesterday because I hardly need them any. 

[DriverBreaker]

6 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... Just opinions of course but to be fair most Pro's have always played a game that isn't our game, although the divide between us and them is getting much wider so I understand and agree with your point. What concerns me is it seems to be routine these days for Pro's to use driver, fairway wood and wedges almost exclusively on all holes but par 3's. The allure of seeing the best players in the world use every club in their bag is almost gone. Watching Tiger hit a low cut or towering draw with a 6 iron from the middle of the fairway has been replaced with a bombed drive and one of 4 wedges that are in a Pro's bag. This is one of the reasons I enjoy watching the LPGA where they still use every club in their bag. 

I hear and appreciate this point, but couldn’t it just also be a generational difference?  Think about the changes in strategy with other sports.  Three pointers in basketball becoming more of a volume shooting game, throw happy offenses in football, etc. 

I think most people, at some point, get to where the game isn’t what they remember it to be.  Yet it is still called golf, baseball, football, etc.  

Same with music.  We all have our era.

[DriverBreaker]

6 hours ago, THEZIPR23 said:

How much is attributable to course strategy? Seems to get lost in these conversations as the game is played almost a full 180 from the old days. Could be a chicken and egg argument however there is substantial strokes saved now vs then. 

Indeed.  The aim of the game is to shoot the lowest score.  The pros who play for money will get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes because that’s their goal.  No matter how it looks or if it is traditional or not.

[DriverBreaker]

On 4/25/2022 at 1:58 PM, MrBandit said:

Well It looks like I should be playing the 4800-5040 yds.. 

Bwaaa ha ha!  I think not good sir.

[BIG STU]

37 minutes ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

I hear and appreciate this point, but couldn’t it just also be a generational difference?  Think about the changes in strategy with other sports.  Three pointers in basketball becoming more of a volume shooting game, throw happy offenses in football, etc. 

I think most people, at some point, get to where the game isn’t what they remember it to be.  Yet it is still called golf, baseball, football, etc.  

Same with music.  We all have our era.

You have a point---- I am old enough to remember when there was no 3 point line in college hoops nor were they allowed to dunk. Yep things change. I have even seen it in dirt track racing in which I used to participate in. Rules and types of cars in those divisions have really changed in the 21 years since I participated. I can hardly tell one division of car from the other now. Yeah things change and the older one gets they are resistant to change. Far as golf for me I watch and have no problem with the distance thing

[DriverBreaker]

I came across this clip of one of my favorite golfers, Lee Trevino, discussing distance on the PGA Tour:

The overwhelming majority of the time I play, I get little to no roll out.  I can see my driver’s pitch mark, the ball us very near it, and it’s almost always all carry with driver.   Some of the bounces and roll out on the PGA Tour courses are insane.  I heard a story where Carl Pettersson said he gained 40yds of driver distance once he got on Tour lol. 

[chisag]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

I hear and appreciate this point, but couldn’t it just also be a generational difference?  Think about the changes in strategy with other sports.  Three pointers in basketball becoming more of a volume shooting game, throw happy offenses in football, etc. 

I think most people, at some point, get to where the game isn’t what they remember it to be.  Yet it is still called golf, baseball, football, etc.  

Same with music.  We all have our era.

 

... The fundamentals of those games haven't changed. You still hit singles, doubles, orioles and HR's. Still play basically the same positions. Same for football. Although athletes are bigger, faster and stronger so even though it is basically the same it is also very different and I get that. Not complaining at all about the few really long hitters as every era had that and they had to chip and putt too. My real point is courses were designed to be played with specific clubs and there is a skill level if you have to hit every club in your bag. Golfers have gotten so long because they are finely tuned athletes and it has rendered many hole designs irrelevant. I guess the only comparison I can think of would be if baseball players started hitting many more home runs because they can all hit is so much farther and you have everyone hitting homers every game with scores like 29-27 with 54 of those home runs it just wouldn't be baseball anymore from a strategy perspective, just Home Run Derby. No other sport I can think of has made the playing field inappropriate for the competition.  

... I am not lamenting the days of balata balls and persimmon woods when every PGA player was a real shotmaker. As you said a different era with different players and equipment. If land was not at a premium or cost was irrelevant and they could just build new courses in the 7500-8500yd range for the Pro's there wouldn't be a "problem". I am of the belief that the greatest golfers should do everything well. It is a rare player that is equally good from the tee, the fairway, around the greens and putting. The ability to just outdrive the hazards leaving a wedge into almost every hole just doesn't force a player to excel in every aspect of the game and it becomes golfs version of Home Run Derby. 

[chisag]

1 hour ago, BIG STU said:

I am old enough to remember when there was no 3 point line in college hoops nor were they allowed to dunk.

 

... My senior year in high school we had a 3 point line in our gym because some of the Carolina Cougars practiced there. I was honestly a great shooter and pretty good ball handler but a poor defensive player LOL. I was shooting one day after school between football and basketball season and this guy with a Guilford College shirt came in and was warming up at the other end. Maybe 6'3" and I figured a small forward (1971) and asked if he wanted to play some one on one. Make it take it from the 3 point line and hit my jumper to get the ball first. I was soooooo cocky back then and ready to give this guy a scoring lesson. Took a hard drive step, pulled back and shot a jumper ... and this small college kid literally grabbed the ball out of the air. Just skied from a standing position and took the ball off my fingers about 3 feet in the air, turned taking a few big steps and let the ball drop in the hole with BOTH hands and certainly could have easily dunked. Long story short I never got to take another shot and after a 0-15 humiliation we shook hands and I asked his name "Lloyd. Lloyd Free" as in World B Free. Beat him in a game of horse from the 3 point line but it didn't erase the sting of zero points and complete one on one humiliation. 

... I went to a Guilford College game and watched him destroy anyone attempting to defend him and have never seen anyone dropping a ball through the hoop from well above without dunking. I did not see him do it, but was told by another player he routinely knocked a dime off the top of the backboard before games. Crazy he was not allowed to dunk. 

[BIG STU]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

... My senior year in high school we had a 3 point line in our gym because some of the Carolina Cougars practiced there. I was honestly a great shooter and pretty good ball handler but a poor defensive player LOL. I was shooting one day after school between football and basketball season and this guy with a Guilford College shirt came in and was warming up at the other end. Maybe 6'3" and I figured a small forward (1971) and asked if he wanted to play some one on one. Make it take it from the 3 point line and hit my jumper to get the ball first. I was soooooo cocky back then and ready to give this guy a scoring lesson. Took a hard drive step, pulled back and shot a jumper ... and this small college kid literally grabbed the ball out of the air. Just skied from a standing position and took the ball off my fingers about 3 feet in the air, turned taking a few big steps and let the ball drop in the hole with BOTH hands and certainly could have easily dunked. Long story short I never got to take another shot and after a 0-15 humiliation we shook hands and I asked his name "Lloyd. Lloyd Free" as in World B Free. Beat him in a game of horse from the 3 point line but it didn't erase the sting of zero points and complete one on one humiliation. 

... I went to a Guilford College game and watched him destroy anyone attempting to defend him and have never seen anyone dropping a ball through the hoop from well above without dunking. I did not see him do it, but was told by another player he routinely knocked a dime off the top of the backboard before games. Crazy he was not allowed to dunk. 

Growing up in the Charlotte area college basketball was big especially UNC. They played the ACC tournament there many years. I can remember one time and I am going to say this was in the late 60s real early 70s Duke was playing UNC. Dean Smith ( RIP) was the UNC coach. I think he was scared of Duke. He put the famous 4 corners stall on them. I think the score for both teams at the end of the game was in single digits for both teams. I guess someone could look it up for certain. I think UNC did win I know the fans raised hell because basically it was boring because I was there to see it. I think that led to the shot clock. FTR my Old Man and Step Mom bled Carolina Blue. LOL I was a NC State fan and Davidson fan. Now days I do not have any interest in any sports pro or college except Golf. I do remember the Carolina Cougars and my Old Man did know Larry Miller in fact he gave me one of those ABA red white and blue basketballs. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

10 hours ago, chisag said:

My real point is courses were designed to be played with specific clubs and there is a skill level if you have to hit every club in your bag. Golfers have gotten so long because they are finely tuned athletes and it has rendered many hole designs irrelevant.

But isn’t the design of the game to get the ball in the hole with the fewest strokes possible? Don’t care how the course or a hole is designed. As a golfer the objective is to find a way to take the fewest strokes in each hole. Even like we see on tv where guys will use and adjacent hole because it gives a better angle. Right or wrong it’s part of the strategy to produce the best score.

[DriverBreaker]

10 hours ago, chisag said:

 

... The fundamentals of those games haven't changed. You still hit singles, doubles, orioles and HR's. Still play basically the same positions. Same for football. Although athletes are bigger, faster and stronger so even though it is basically the same it is also very different and I get that. Not complaining at all about the few really long hitters as every era had that and they had to chip and putt too. My real point is courses were designed to be played with specific clubs and there is a skill level if you have to hit every club in your bag. Golfers have gotten so long because they are finely tuned athletes and it has rendered many hole designs irrelevant. I guess the only comparison I can think of would be if baseball players started hitting many more home runs because they can all hit is so much farther and you have everyone hitting homers every game with scores like 29-27 with 54 of those home runs it just wouldn't be baseball anymore from a strategy perspective, just Home Run Derby. No other sport I can think of has made the playing field inappropriate for the competition.  

... I am not lamenting the days of balata balls and persimmon woods when every PGA player was a real shotmaker. As you said a different era with different players and equipment. If land was not at a premium or cost was irrelevant and they could just build new courses in the 7500-8500yd range for the Pro's there wouldn't be a "problem". I am of the belief that the greatest golfers should do everything well. It is a rare player that is equally good from the tee, the fairway, around the greens and putting. The ability to just outdrive the hazards leaving a wedge into almost every hole just doesn't force a player to excel in every aspect of the game and it becomes golfs version of Home Run Derby. 

I take and appreciate your point again.  I would still say that the fundamentals of tournament golf, shooting the lowest score by any means necessary, haven’t changed.  You still have to hit mid to long irons on par 3’s and par 5’s.  You still have to get out of bunkers and read greens. You still have to play it out of a divot, etc.  It just looks different (again back to each generation having their idea of what it should look like). 

[cnosil]

11 hours ago, chisag said:

 My real point is courses were designed to be played with specific clubs and there is a skill level if you have to hit every club in your bag. Golfers have gotten so long because they are finely tuned athletes and it has rendered many hole designs irrelevant. 

I’ll dig into the subtleties of this a little bit.  I don’t think courses were designed to play specific clubs; the number on the bottom of the club is arbitrary and golfers have always hit the ball different distances. We can’t say that it is about hitting specific shapes since players hit fades on holes that favor draws and draws on holes that favor fades.  The architects intent is probably more about hitting shots from certain locations and the fact that players hit into spots that reduce the difficulty more than the designer intended is probably the issue you are discussing.  Sure length is a golfers greatest friend but making courses longer only plays into the longer players hands.  The PGA tour has the ability to make the same old style course play to near par for a US Open and play to 15 or more under par during a weekly tour stop.  That to me indicates that the problem isn’t the design but how courses are maintained and setup.  Grow the rough, leave the fairways longer so the ball doesn’t roll as far,  narrow the fairways, make bunkers more penal (think the memorial tournament where Jack changed the rake design), I’m even ok with internal OB to prevent players from taking non traditional lines to the green.  
 

player strategies have changed and unfortunately the course architect hasn’t kept up with these changes.  Players are learning at younger ages how to better attack golf courses.  Players are playing shots without emotion.   I’ll reference your how did you play post where you talked about playing alternate shot; you thought about not putting your partner in a bad spot; there were thoughts and emotions associated with each shot.   You need players to have doubt about the shot they are going to hit and that doubt is created by the potential for increased scoring.  How do you make hitting the fairway at 280 significantly more beneficial than being in the rough at 300?  
 

I still wonder what people are trying to fix.  Do I want the player to play the course as it was “intended” by the architect?  Do I want the player to hit a specific club to a spot the architect intended (meaning this is a par 4 so the player should hit driver and it should only go about X distance)? Do I want to roll back the scoring that the professionals are making?  Do I want to change the bomb/wedge approach so that there is a difference perception of the game?  

[chisag]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

I don’t think courses were designed to play specific clubs; the number on the bottom of the club is arbitrary and golfers have always hit the ball different distances. The architects intent is probably more about hitting shots from certain locations and the fact that players hit into spots that reduce the difficulty more than the designer intended is probably the issue you are discussing.

 

... I do not disagree at all that the game has changed for a myriad of reasons. I do not wish we could go back to the 70's when golfers literally played a different game due to the ball and equipment. The above is exactly what I am talking about. To design a par 5 where the fairway is reasonably generous but narrows considerably between two large bunker at 320yds and challenging those bunkers gives you a shot at reaching the green in two as opposed to hitting a strategic drive 300yds and staying short of the bunker (many British courses come to mind) makes for an interesting hole. When the hole was designed, the ability to carry a drive 330 never entered into the designers mind or he would make the bunkers longer forcing a 360yd carry. I again go back to baseball and if the left field wall was 260ft when the stadium was built, they would have changed the design and move the wall back because HR Derby isn't baseball. I just can't think of another sport that has made the field/course obsolete. It is no easier to shoot a 3 pointer today than it was when that shot was introduced. 

... The Open is my favorite tournament. Like always there is an advantage for long hitters and I think that is as it should be. But there are also penalties for challenging the deep pot bunkers or long thick heather if you play bomb and gouge. Watching Tiger win only hitting an iron off the tee was a real treat but watching a long hitter challenge the bunkers/heather and win is equally entertaining. But for me at least, watching US players hit over a dog leg the designer never intended to be carried and hitting a wedge from the fairway over and over again just gets boring. 

[fixyurdivot]

This discussion, across a number of threads, continues to be a fun debate.  For those who fall more into the "there is no distance issue on tour" camp, let's ask a slightly different question.  At what point does an increase in average driving distance become an issue?  Would players driving a handful of par 4 holes every round or reaching every par 5 in two shots be a game you would find entertaining?

For me, it's not so much the average scoring getting lower but that I prefer to see tour players having to use more of their arrows more often.  If all tour level courses were magically redesigned for today's players, I'm guessing nearly all holes would be lengthened.  And, if this is true, then why?

 

[DriverBreaker]

On 4/27/2022 at 11:11 AM, fixyurdivot said:

This discussion, across a number of threads, continues to be a fun debate.  For those who fall more into the "there is no distance issue on tour" camp, let's ask a slightly different question.  At what point does an increase in average driving distance become an issue?  Would players driving a handful of par 4 holes every round or reaching every par 5 in two shots be a game you would find entertaining?

For me, it's not so much the average scoring getting lower but that I prefer to see tour players having to use more of their arrows more often.  If all tour level courses were magically redesigned for today's players, I'm guessing nearly all holes would be lengthened.  And, if this is true, then why?

 

That’s the thing though, I’m not convinced they would have to be lengthened.  I enjoy watching the pros struggle in the Open and U.S. Open.  I think some of the points mentioned above are examples of ways to make the advantage of distance more of a risk/reward scenario without adding length.  Strategically placed pinching bunkers at 320yds (any course could build and add these without hurting the experience for those who would never reach them in the first place).  Cutting small ponds, taller fairways, shaved fringes, etc.  it seems more about the maintenance (i.e., the Trevino video) when the same course can play easier/harder depending on the event and desires of the Tour and officials. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

16 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

At what point does an increase in average driving distance become an issue?  Would players driving a handful of par 4 holes every round or reaching every par 5 in two shots be a game you would find entertaining?

Considering that most par 4s aren’t driveable now it would take a lot to get there. I have no issue with reaching every par 5 in 2 shots. It doesn’t mean they hit the green every time and there’s some risk/reward that goes into this strategy. No matter what the ruling bodies do there are always going to be exceptionally long hitters and not so long with some falling in between. I find watching the pros play in general entertaining. I’ve had the chance to follow Tiger amongst the hoard of people by strategically getting ahead, I’ve been able to follow guys like Rickie, fury’s and angel Cabrera in a group. Got to walk alongside Adam Scott, jhonathan vegas, Russell Henley and various others at different levels of notoriety on tour. It was fun watching them all play the same course differently.

16 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

For me, it's not so much the average scoring getting lower but that I prefer to see tour players having to use more of their arrows more often.  If all tour level courses were magically redesigned for today's players, I'm guessing nearly all holes would be lengthened.  And, if this is true, then why?

This is the bad thing about golf on tv. You get limited exposure to certain guys each week and certain shots. It’s completely different in person but still across the entirety of the season you get to see them hit different shots. Whether it’s something like bubba’s shot from the pine straw at Augusta to long drives, flighted wedges, amazing short game, different shots with scoring irons the shots are there for the viewing, they just may not always come from the same people week to week.

As cnosil mentioned ahead if the tour really wanted to “fix” the issue they could just change the course setup for the tournament whether it’s narrowing the fairways by letting the rough grow further out, growing the rough thicker, changing green speeds and requires no change to equipment or ball rules/design.

[Shankster]

Just plant Oak trees 5 yards in front of the tee box.  5-10 years they’ll have to hit lob wedges off the tee.  Problem solved.

[cnosil]

58 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

I again go back to baseball and if the left field wall was 260ft when the stadium was built, they would have changed the design and move the wall back because HR Derby isn't baseball. I just can't think of another sport that has made the field/course obsolete. It is no easier to shoot a 3 pointer today than it was when that shot was introduced. 
 

I like you perspective.   My question about the baseball field and field design.  Thinking across sports, baseball and golf are the only sports that do not have standard configurations.   While the bases are standard the outfield distance/ design can vary considerably; think green monster in Fenway. 3 pointers are standard in every court, football fields are standard, soccer fields are standard, hockey rinks can vary but there are regulations it must fit under.    While some courses replicate holes, there isn’t a standard or regulation golf course…rough can be non existent or 3 feet tall,  I can have 10 yard wide fairways or 100 yard wide, I can have different speed greens, I can grow the fairway to different lengths, I can have different sands in bunker and can rake them differently.  Interesting that you uses the word obsolete; is the course obsolete because the player can hit it 330 yards, or because there is no penalty if you aren’t perfect on that 330 yard drive, because players are able to do things that were never thought of but could be corrected (lengthen and deepen bunkers, grow grass), or because strategies have changed?  Also,  Not sure looking at the field or equipment in other sports is relevant because your opposition is generally doing things to prevent you from being successful.   
 

I do wonder that if we did scale back distance and brought these hazards into play but scoring didn’t change would people be satisfied?  Maybe we could say the the player receives a penalty if the ball goes outside some boundary for each hole.  Don’t have to worry about the player carrying the trees because they crossed the designated boundary for the field of play; 1 stroke penalty and re-tee.  

[chisag]

2 minutes ago, cnosil said:

While some courses replicate holes, there isn’t a standard or regulation golf course…rough can be non existent or 3 feet tall,  I can have 10 yard wide fairways or 100 yard wide, I can have different speed greens, I can grow the fairway to different lengths, I can have different sands in bunker and can rake them differently.  

 

Interesting that you uses the word obsolete; is the course obsolete because the player can hit it 330 yards, or because there is no penalty if you aren’t perfect on that 330 yard drive, because players are able to do things that were never thought of but could be corrected (lengthen and deepen bunkers, grow grass), or because strategies have changed?  

 

Also,  Not sure looking at the field or equipment in other sports is relevant because your opposition is generally doing things to prevent you from being successful.   
 

I do wonder that if we did scale back distance and brought these hazards into play but scoring didn’t change would people be satisfied?  Maybe we could say the the player receives a penalty if the ball goes outside some boundary for each hole.  Don’t have to worry about the player carrying the trees because they crossed the designated boundary for the field of play; 1 stroke penalty and re-tee.  

 

 

... I have no objection to players getting better in every way and shooting lower scores. Score to me is irrelevant because they are playing against each other. I don't think you can compare or even should compare golfers of an earlier era that played in completely different conditions with different equipment. If you can Master Augusta's greens and now much  longer holes shooting 30 under, I would just applaud. 

... I would make the argument that in golf, what is preventing you from being successful is the course. In other sports the defense has gotten stronger but in golf it has become weaker. 

... And I use the word obsolete as the courses are today. And agree with you that the problem is no penalty for flying over hazards. Re-designing with deeper bunkers, Nicklaus raking, thicker-taller grass or heather or any other measure to make flying water, bunkers or tall trees guarding a dogleg a risk/reward would bring that element back into competing. If Bryson can fly a bunker at 340 and land in a narrow fairway avoiding heather or deep grass on either side, that gives him a risk/reward advantage and all part of the game. Of course if he carries the bunker but he is 1 inch inside 8" rough there should not be any complaint of taking the driver out of his hands because that shot now becomes interesting and exciting as opposed to just bombing it over the courses defenses to a wide open fairway.  

[BIG STU]

7 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

But isn’t the design of the game to get the ball in the hole with the fewest strokes possible? Don’t care how the course or a hole is designed. As a golfer the objective is to find a way to take the fewest strokes in each hole. Even like we see on tv where guys will use and adjacent hole because it gives a better angle. Right or wrong it’s part of the strategy to produce the best score.

Yep there are a bunch of different ways to get the ball into the hole as in as few of strokes as possible. The old timers call it "knowing how to golf your ball" . Personally Bryson at the AP going up the opposite fairway on a par 5 I found funny. Driver wedge on a 500 yard plus par 5. I know some got their feathers ruffled over that. Like you said strategy. 

[fixyurdivot]

3 hours ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Considering that most par 4s aren’t driveable now it would take a lot to get there. I have no issue with reaching every par 5 in 2 shots. It doesn’t mean they hit the green every time and there’s some risk/reward that goes into this strategy. No matter what the ruling bodies do there are always going to be exceptionally long hitters and not so long with some falling in between. I find watching the pros play in general entertaining. I’ve had the chance to follow Tiger amongst the hoard of people by strategically getting ahead, I’ve been able to follow guys like Rickie, fury’s and angel Cabrera in a group. Got to walk alongside Adam Scott, jhonathan vegas, Russell Henley and various others at different levels of notoriety on tour. It was fun watching them all play the same course differently.

This is the bad thing about golf on tv. You get limited exposure to certain guys each week and certain shots. It’s completely different in person but still across the entirety of the season you get to see them hit different shots. Whether it’s something like bubba’s shot from the pine straw at Augusta to long drives, flighted wedges, amazing short game, different shots with scoring irons the shots are there for the viewing, they just may not always come from the same people week to week.

As cnosil mentioned ahead if the tour really wanted to “fix” the issue they could just change the course setup for the tournament whether it’s narrowing the fairways by letting the rough grow further out, growing the rough thicker, changing green speeds and requires no change to equipment or ball rules/design.

 All valid points and interesting discussion, but no answer my question.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

24 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

 All valid points and interesting discussion, but no answer my question.  

The answer is already known. Courses are being lengthened every time there’s a change. Extra fee boxes being added to make holes play longer, property being bought to add length. All the new courses being designed with the intention of getting a tour event or major are being built longer.

The why is already known too. Because everyone thinks to “fix the distance issue” or to make courses harder they have to be longer so they aren’t “overpowered. “

[fixyurdivot]

4 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

The answer is already known. Courses are being lengthened every time there’s a change. Extra fee boxes being added to make holes play longer, property being bought to add length. All the new courses being designed with the intention of getting a tour event or major are being built longer.

The why is already known too. Because everyone thinks to “fix the distance issue” or to make courses harder they have to be longer so they aren’t “overpowered. “

Well, that just supports the argument that distance is an issue... at least to those who decide on course design for tour level play.  But, my question is directed at those who say/believe distance is not an issue.  

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 minute ago, fixyurdivot said:

Well, that just supports the argument that distance is an issue... at least to those who decide on course design for tour level play.  But, my question is directed at those who say/believe distance is not an issue.  

I don’t think it’s an issue. It’s perceived to be an issue because people like Jack and Tiger are complaining that it costs too much to make courses longer. They are saying this from a course designer standpoint and not a player one.

Then you have the talking heads on tv saying similar and it courses courses to react to protect their design or whatever.

Theres always been a discrepancy between the longest hitters on tour and the shorter ones. Courses were Tiger proofing themselves when he started winning. Instead of looking at putting some sort of bunker, body of water or other obstacle in the areas where the longest players hit the ball they want to go with just out the tees farther back yet we will keep fairways tight and have 20+ yards of rollout. Instead of letting the first cut of rough grow to 1-2” and the next cut longer they leave the course unpenalized for not hitting the fairway.

The tour understands distance sells. 

[fixyurdivot]

4 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

I don’t think it’s an issue. It’s perceived to be an issue because people like Jack and Tiger are complaining that it costs too much to make courses longer. They are saying this from a course designer standpoint and not a player one.

Then you have the talking heads on tv saying similar and it courses courses to react to protect their design or whatever.

Theres always been a discrepancy between the longest hitters on tour and the shorter ones. Courses were Tiger proofing themselves when he started winning. Instead of looking at putting some sort of bunker, body of water or other obstacle in the areas where the longest players hit the ball they want to go with just out the tees farther back yet we will keep fairways tight and have 20+ yards of rollout. Instead of letting the first cut of rough grow to 1-2” and the next cut longer they leave the course unpenalized for not hitting the fairway.

The tour understands distance sells. 

Okay, you do not think it's an issue  but won't answer the question... fair enough.  Look, I get all your points, many of which have been discussed over and over on this subject.  I'm just trying to play the "lets take this debate to a hypothetical point" and understand at what point it becomes an issue.  

[Middler]

10 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Okay, you do not think it's an issue  but won't answer the question... fair enough.  Look, I get all your points, many of which have been discussed over and over on this subject.  I'm just trying to play the "lets take this debate to a hypothetical point" and understand at what point it becomes an issue.  

If the R&A/USGA take steps to prevent or seriously limit additional gains in distance due to clubs and balls - we don't have to have that debate. I for one hope they do clamp down, but we'll see. We all know that makes it harder for OEMs to sell "new, longer" drivers - but they seem perfectly willing to STRETCH the truth regarding distance by all means already, and buyers are more than willing to buy marketing hype. Seems like continuing the debate gives buyers hope the hype is true...maybe OEMs benefit from ongoing debate.

[DaveP043]

17 hours ago, BIG STU said:

I think he was scared of Duke. He put the famous 4 corners stall on them. I think the score for both teams at the end of the game was in single digits for both teams. I guess someone could look it up for certain.

I think I remember when Maryland played UNC to a score of something like 22-20.  

5 hours ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

 it seems more about the maintenance (i.e., the Trevino video) when the same course can play easier/harder depending on the event and desires of the Tour and officials. 

Courses can certainly be set up to decrease roll-out of drives and to punish wayward shots to a greater extent.  But that depends on the tournament organizer's choices, and with the PGA Tour emphasizing birdies and low scores and excitement, I don't see the Tour voluntarily making those kinds of choices on a regular basis.

32 minutes ago, Middler said:

If the R&A/USGA take steps to prevent or seriously limit additional gains in distance due to clubs and balls - we don't have to have that debate

In many respects, the driver heads and golf balls have been limited for 15 or 20 years, manufacturers have been using the distance claims to sell club and balls all that time.  Chances are, most of those claims have been gross exaggerations.  From what I've read, the USGA/R&A will be evaluating a slightly different way of testing golf balls, with the upper distance limit remaining the same, as well as evaluating a tightening of the testing tolerance for driver faces.  Taking that at face value, future distance gains are likely to be largely a function of even better clubfitting, advances in shaft design, and player strength and speed training.  Personally, I'm not excited about the idea of bifurcation, I think there are a lot of potential issues with that, but its at least on the table right now.