The Great Distance Debate

General Discussion
#1

We’ve all seen and heard the USGA along with talking heads in the sport call for a roll back of the ball and club technology due to distance being out of control.

Well, here’s a little data pulled from a post by Super Speed on Instagram yesterday. It’s all from Arccos, which has accumulated a ton of data. I think looking at this proves there’s zero issue with distance at the amateur level. Say what you will about the pro level, but the longest player on Tour - Bryson - was only 7 yards longer than Robert Garrigus when he led the stat in 2010.

Tour average in 2020: 296.4
Tour average in 2010: 287.3

These are not the massive gains some want us to believe.

Look at this date from Arccos and tell me the average amateur needs their technology rolled back. Is that going to make the game more enjoyable for the average player? Is that going to grow the game?

image
image4000×4000 816 KB

Guys like me who can hit it out there 300+ would be fine, but we’re obviously not the norm. Rolling technology back only hurts the game. It hurts the OEMs. And it hurts the average Joe.

Tell me I’m wrong.

#2

Its probably best to refer to the actual report published by the USGA/R&A this past February, refer to both the Report and to the Conclusions here:
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/advancing-the-game/distance-insights.html
I don’t think the data you present is substantially different from the data used by the USGA/R&A. What’s important to look at are the potential avenues for change brought up in the Conclusions document. They include the potential for an (optional) local rule requiring the use of “shorter” equipment (bifurcation, really), and the potential to do more to freeze future equipment-related distance gains. The conclusions say the Ruling Bodies don NOT anticipate making any changes to equipment regulations that would reduce distance across the board. The talking heads may be proposing this, but the USGA and R&A say its not in the cards. Mike Davis has been pushing distance rollbacks for a long time now, but the official position of the Ruling Bodies is that distance will not be rolled back for us normal golfers.

1 Like
#3

Yet the debate rolls on and both the USGA and R&A remain open to the topic. Luckily Mike Davis is on his way out, but that doesn’t mean the end of the conversation.

Seeing data like this should end the conversation completely. Until the average Joe - heck even the average Tour player - is overpowering golf courses, this shouldn’t even be a topic.

#4

It’ll be interesting to see where this lands… if they do go down bifurcation route, where does it start? College? How do you have a US Am and the winner gets into US Open but has to play with different equipment.

This becomes too much of a mess.

It’ll be a lot of talk and plenty of unintended consequences if they make a change.

#5

One good reason to look closely at it is the observable trend for courses to get longer. Even though we don’t NEED it, we’re seeing the pros playing longer and longer courses, and we thing WE need longer courses. Consequently, there’s pressure (from a marketing standpoint) to build longer courses, or extend existing courses. That has a financial impact, a pace of play impact, and a resource impact (water, chemicals, manpower, etc). To me, those are valid reasons to be aware of the changes at all levels.
But really, the debate hasn’t been rolling on until the most visible “long guy” won the US Open. That has caused an avalanche of “sky is falling” stuff from the talking heads, who need to roil up controversy to get viewers. The USGA/R&A are continuing on exactly the same trajectory they were on in February, except its been delayed for a year with COVID. The report outlining future avenues for research and discussion will be released in the spring of 2021, instead of this past spring.
I know that bifurcation through local rule is on the table right now. I agree, there are too many complications for that to be a real viable option. My best bet is that we’ll see additional testing methods designed to minimize future distance gains from equipment, and that’s it.

#6

This is exactly the point. The argument I’m sure some will make is college baseball issues metal bats and pros use wood. You adapt. But it’s not the same in golf and it gets super super messy downstream, as you said. It’s like the wedge groove change, but way worse.

#7

Absolutely wrong! for many of us, playing golf, is meant to be fun, as well as trying to score your best. Don’t you enjoy the game a lot more, when you drive from the tee goes 240-250 yards, instead of 190 yards? I know that I do. The industry and the USGA, can set and use, whatever standards they feel are appropriate for Professional Golf, but for the rest of us, that are probably some version of (“a hacker”), pro clubs, should be more, including versions of the “same” clubs, that are easier to hit, and Drivers that are modified in some way that they go further. It should be a separate category, for "non-professional golfers, and should be sanctioned to be totally legal.
These modifications and changes, would actually help the industry in several ways:

  1. Less people would quit playing golf( because it’s to hard to play),
  2. By making golf more enjoyable, it could be more attractive to play,
    drawing in a larger number of recreational golfers,
  3. Golf sales of both clubs and equipment, would increase exponentially.
#8

Which one of us is “Absolutely wrong”?
Are you endorsing bifurcation of the rules? How many different sets of equipment rules do you think there should be? One for the pros, I can read that. How about those of us who play competitions, from amateur club tournaments to statewide am events to big ones like the US Amateur? Is there a point where a player has to change to different equipment? There are lots of issues with bifurcation.

#9

Rolling back technology will not hurt the game. Who plays this game because they hit it a certain distance? The game is just an enjoyable now as it was when I was playing balata balls and tiny driver heads.
It won’t hurt the OEM’s , in fact you could say that it would help them. Millions of golfers buying equipment that is compliant is a huge boost to them.

#10

There is literally zero reason to roll back technology. Go look at Arccos data (I posted it somewhere) in regard to average driver distance in different hdcp ranges. People are definitely NOT hitting the ball too far.

#11

You said it won’t hurt the game. How? You said it would hurt the OEM’s. How? There are a ton of reasons to roll back technology. There are also a ton of reasons not to.

#12
  1. mike davis is an idiot.
  2. want to Bryson-proof a course? One well-placed tree always defeats a golf ball. Every single time.

I stopped patronizing TopGolf when they switched to reduced flight balls. Where’s the fun if a driver and 6i go the same distance, always dead straight?
Coincidence? My 2£

1 Like
#13

Thought this article was interesting: https://www.golfpass.com/travel-advisor/articles/coore-crenshaw-international-longest-golf-course-renovation
Are we seeing the ‘sky-is-falling’ course length fad ending?

2 Likes
#14

Thanks for the link. I’m guessing for the daily fee, and probably country club golfer, hitting the ball prodigious distances is not happening. The Coor-Crenshaw approach is fantastic, I applaud it. For those people getting lathered up over pro distances, you need to get a hobby. It’s a different game from what you and I play, so sit back and enjoy their skills.

#15

Some distance helps. for the average single digit golfer, if you can keep it in play being able to stripe it 240-260 consistently on a 6700-6800 yd course…you still should be able to keep your handicap in the single digits easily if the rest of your game is above average, This is what I know. When Jack was the man, he was the longest hitter on the tour, same with Tiger, DJ, Rory, now Bryson. Here’s the quote from DJ…"if my putter’s on , no one beats me. In the 1960’s and 70’s if you had to bet your life on someone making a 6 footer, who would you pick? Jack, 2000’s Tiger, 2010 to now, Bryson or DJ or even Brooks. I don’t care who is whacking it the farthest, and where you are whacking it…The best players can roll the ball, even if it’s just a one off wonder for a week, it’s never been about how far, it’s about rolling it the least from 25ft consistently. If that was not the case, Sadlowski, Berkshire, Sellinger would all have been multiple Major winners…Period. End of Story!

#16

I really think it would be more appropriate to quote an entire sentence. The Ruling Bodies have produced a statement of intention that differs significantly from the stated opinions of the longtime CEO. Overall distance reductions are unlikely, from everything I’ve read. And I’m glad to keep reading that.

#17

Dave, I agree with you, it’s just so hard to regurgitate much of his self-serving, alarmist drivel. Under ‘conflict of interest’ in the dictionary is a pic of his open mouth.

Then why waste millions producing the report? I fear they’re softening us all to eventual B-word. Full disclosure, a huge mistake imo. The unintended consequences alone would be tectonic.
To get to my trust level you’d need a shovel.

#18

Distance gains are real, at least at the top levels of golf. There has been a continual lengthening of golf courses. Isn’t it appropriate to study the situation, to understand what’s happening, and to try to understand any cause and effect relationships? To evaluate whether anything should be done, for the best of the game’s future? And if its appropriate, who would you think should do the studies? The PGA Tour, who largely worship distance? The equipment manufacturers, who worship distance? Its absolutely appropriate for the USGA and R&A to study the issue, and I believe they’re heading towards the conclusion I’d prefer.

2 Likes
#19

Possibly, for a handful of players. Here’s a clue:

image
image4096×2955 1.57 MB
image
Some at the elite level have chosen a 24-7 obsession, not just a job. Add dedicated state of the art human performance regimen and NASA-level mega-data, presto.
You ask is it “appropriate to study the situation”. No! Does FIFA spend millions to study spin on a ball because of Beckham? Does ITF study catgut because of Laver or Bjorg? Ok, I’m dating myself there.
It’s a specious question.
Davis has stated that increased distance is pressuring courses (presumably courses interested in courting PGA events) to expand their footprint. Scott Fawcett and Lou Stagner disagree, accommodation of increased patrons and media demands, not players, are responsible. There has never been a PGA event that has come close to using the “tips”.
Dave, I hold you in the greatest esteem. I hope you’ll forgive the ramblings of an old hack like me in spirit intended: passionate debate.

Even with modern equipment, I’d struggle to match Arnie’s balata off persimmon. But it’s important to me that I’m playing the same game.

1 Like
#20

I don’t think so, I think this is right at the heart of the matter. The Ruling Bodies write the rules governing equipment in golf, from the diameter of the flagstick to the length of the tee to club grooves. Certain of those rules currently in place govern things like COR of a clubface, and initial velocity of a golf ball. They regulate distance, in effect. So its absolutely critical to try to understand whether distance is changing, what causes any such changes, and whether changes to the current equipment regulations should be enacted.
I think much too much importance has been ascribed to Mike Davis’ opinions. I honestly don’t care about what any individual says, certainly not one who’ll be out of his position of importance soon. I care about what the organizations say as a group. And what the USGA/R&A have clearly said differs significantly from what Davis has promoted. No distance reduction across the board. Explore the possibility of an optional local rule (bifurcation). I don’t see bifurcation being accepted, there are too many issues to overcome. So I believe we’ll stay about where we are now.