Are these distances killing the game?

[HomerJSimpson]

I think it is too easy to only look at this from a few tournaments though. Too many classic courses no longer feature on tour, due to the distances the professionals hit the ball. Not all courses can afford, or want, a complete redesign.

True. Didn't St Pierre host a Solheim Cup? Fulford, Forest of Arden are two more I remember regularly hosting top pro events but would be taken apart these days and the cost to keep up has seen them go (along with a lack of sponsorship in golf in the U.K. But that's another thread)

 

[fundy]

Though Casey and Speith threatened the course record hasn't been equalled or bettered for 22 years.

The fact that Speith got close, who isn't a big hitter anyway does tend to show in my mind that distances are not ruining the game.

Yes equipment has improved, but I would suggest that most pros now have a dedicated gym routing to build power and flexibility, coupled with the launch monitor technology they can really focus in on what they can do to improve club head speed and smash factor

how long was Augusta 22 years ago and how long is it today? Must have been extended at least 500+ yards in that time

 

[the_coach]

don't think that's really all that relevant

sure the course has been changed length added but they haven't added an extreme amount & reed won with 273 - if folks look at the history of winning scores overtime at the masters they will find 273's 271's 275' 277 - so the winning score would indicate that the so called massive increase in distance in the game has changed nothing that much - it's all still in the ball park area it's been for years & years

reed on 15 into the wind had 265 to the pin
nicklaus hit a 1 iron second into 15 around 220+ in 1975

think the hole distance is ruining the game it's the death of golf is just completely wide of the mark to be honest

 

[USER1999]

Distance is not ruining the game, it is just making certain course layouts obsolete. MacKenzie designed Augusta to be played a certain way. Old Tom Morris designed my home course to be played a certain way. That way is now obsolete. Greens that were positioned, and designed to recieve a longish iron, are now recieving wedges. Long irons need bigger greens, shorter irons need more compact, tricked up greens.
My course is re positioning bunkers. They have been there for 100 years, but are no longer in the correct position to be a hazard. They are moving tees back too.

The kids at my place bomb the ball miles. It is a different game. They too, are hitting 8 or 9 irons as second shots on par 5s. The hazards are not placed for these guys. They play a different golf course.

 

[inthehole]

Its killing courses which in turn is making the game less fun and less sustainable.

Building longer and longer courses is expensive and not fun for the average amateur - I m sure that we have all played on courses which are a long slog rather than enjoyable .

A "tournament" ball would solve much of the issue at a stroke .

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I dont see it being an issue one single bit

There are plenty of courses that aren’t massive in length yet still are tough to play especially for 99% of the club amateurs - HC’s aren’t coming flying down at courses that haven’t been increased.

Courses like Sunningdale etc are the best in the world - they aren’t Bomber courses and they don’t feel the need to increase the length and I suspect that’s the same with the majority of courses around the UK .

I have played long , short , medium courses and enjoyed them all and I’m far from a big hitter - I don’t see why any changes should be made when the affect on us and even the pros is minimal at best.

And even if you do go to these new American style bomber courses - there are still tees at lengths acceptable for all

 

[Crow]

Distance is not ruining the game, it is just making certain course layouts obsolete. MacKenzie designed Augusta to be played a certain way. Old Tom Morris designed my home course to be played a certain way. That way is now obsolete. Greens that were positioned, and designed to recieve a longish iron, are now recieving wedges. Long irons need bigger greens, shorter irons need more compact, tricked up greens.
My course is re positioning bunkers. They have been there for 100 years, but are no longer in the correct position to be a hazard. They are moving tees back too.

Similar to what I said, the old game of golf is dead.

Today it's about smacking the ball as far as you can, wedging to the green and then putting on often stupidly fast greens. But because this has crept up over the last few decades it's seen as the norm and many players now can't remember anything else.

I dont see it being an issue one single bit

There are plenty of courses that aren’t massive in length yet still are tough to play especially for 99% of the club amateurs - HC’s aren’t coming flying down at courses that haven’t been increased.

To obtain a handicap between 8 and 18 has never been massively difficult, most players get there and then don't have the time or inclination to put in the effort to get lower so average handicaps aren't likely to change much. But at the elite end the number of crack golfers has increased hugely.

Courses like Sunningdale etc are the best in the world - they aren’t Bomber courses and they don’t feel the need to increase the length and I suspect that’s the same with the majority of courses around the UK .

I have played long , short , medium courses and enjoyed them all and I’m far from a big hitter - I don’t see why any changes should be made when the affect on us and even the pros is minimal at best.

Sunningdale and the like are obsolete for top end tournaments. Even if they're not changing them people are hitting wedges and short irons into lots of par fours.

You might not be a big hitter by today's standards but measured against 30 years ago you're one hell of a big hitter.

The game has changed, most people are happy with that as can be seen in this thread.
Any new club/ball development that makes the game easier is grabbed with both hands.

For me it's a terrible shame.

 

[Slab]

@Crow

Have you compared your distances through the bag between a modern set and a set from yesteryear

Be interesting to see what the results are

 

[Orikoru]

I don't find it a problem. I wouldn't want to see equipment or golf balls limited for pros, just make the courses harder, as others have said. Make it more of a risk to hit it 370 yards, so that it has to be pinpoint accurate to do so. If a player can hit it that far and land it on a sixpence, then they shouldn't be restricted from doing so. But it would make the big-hitters think twice before just stepping up and belting it each time.

 

[Crow]

@Crow

Have you compared your distances through the bag between a modern set and a set from yesteryear

Be interesting to see what the results are

I've not done a proper comparison on a launch monitor but going from playing experience I can make a good guess.

1 wood/Driver - A good swing that's properly middled will go around 240 to 250 yards which is not bad but the loss of distance when not middled is dramatic and an average swing might be 190 to 210 yards, with a bad one being embarassing.
This loss of distance for a poorer strike is the biggest difference between my wooden woods and modern clubs, today's drivers have such a big head that missing the sweet spot by some way will still result in a decent enough shot.
For reference, on a good middled swing with my Titliest 909 (even my modern clubs are old!) I might see 270 to 280 yards, an average swing 230 to 250 yards and a bad one will still be getting me in range of the green on a typical par 4.

Fairway woods, similar to the above but the difference isn't as great, although as faces get livelier and heads bigger that difference is growing, hybrids fall into this bracket as well.


Irons are a harder one to pin down.
First off it depends on the date of the vintage set as this creep has been going on for decades so my older sets are different to my more recent sets.
Secondly it depends on which new set is used to compare against as some irons are less jacked and explosive than others.

Let's say one of my late 60s sets against a set reviewed by GM, the TaylorMade M3. http://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/reviews/irons/taylormade-m3-irons

My 7 iron is a single piece cast or forged head with a traditional loft of around 38 degrees.
The M3 is a multi material head with RibCOR technology (whatever that is?),a speed pocket, face slots and tungsten weighting, the loft is 30.5 degrees and without measuring I'd take a good guess that it's longer in the shaft too.
A good hit with my 7 iron (using modern ball) is around 140 yards, I've not hit the M3 but Joel Tadman's GM review was carrying 176 average, Joel is a decent player so probably 165/170 might be typical.

Assuming 10 yard gapping we're looking at three clubs difference if just looking at the number on the bottom, but again a significant factor will be forgiveness on off centre strikes.

Putters are a whole different area altogether but I'm only playing bladed types now, and that doesn't include Anser "blades".

(Sorry, I got a bit long-winded in the reply!)

The article below, although quite old, has some interesting stuff on loft creep in irons.
http://www.leaderboard.com/loftinfo.htm

 

[Slab]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Crow

I really think there are two separate spheres when talking about any ‘threat’ to the game from distance. The Pro game is a completely separate sphere and affects only a tiny amount of courses required to be suitable for tournament play (& doesn’t really affect us)

The other sphere is us lot and I don’t think the average Joe Golfer is hitting driver/wedge today compared to driver/6i of 40 years ago (physically he might be but not in reality)

The driver is clearly giving more distance and will reduce the 2nd shot club selection by a couple of clubs but the other couple of club difference is in the loft creep and other advances i.e ball (so ‘distance’ is being eroded from both ends with better performance from the clubs and loft creep/renaming, meaning players hitting driver/wedge when in reality for comparison purposes it’s maybe more like driver/8.5iron)

For a ‘killing the game’ comparison to be fair we really need to be looking at distance rather than club names to see what scale the problem might be at (if there even is one)

For example if yesteryears drive was 240 leaving 160 to the pin and today is 270/130 its really just the differential in distance of the 2nd shot that matters and is the scale of any issue that might need to be tackled, its not about what club is used to make the ball go 130 (which might well be a club stamped with a PW for some, but it muddies the picture and gives exaggerated/false results if used for highlighting threats to golf because its lofted like an oldie 8.5 iron)

So the ‘problem’ of players able to hit driver/wedge today isn’t really the problem cos they’re not really hitting driver/wedge, they’re hitting driver/8.5I (or whatever the actual is) So when someone actually figures out the right numbers only then can we ask if there's a threat of killing the game

I have a 20 year set of Cobra irons and a 2 year old set of Cobras, on the range I’d be lucky to see an average of 10 yard differential in distance (& some of that attributable to swing inconsistencies) but there’s a mammoth difference in results for off centre hits (which is why I bought new irons)

So yup it’s a different game but only insofar as a modern football or boots etc can outperform the old stuff so football (& every other sport) has developed, but I’d say we’re a long way off killing golf and happily with both old and new gear available everyone can get whatever enjoyment from the game suits them best

 

[Crow]

Slab, I agree with much of what you say.

We both know that new clubs go a long way and that part of that is down to loft/shaft length and part to face bounce or COR.
The second feature of modern clubs that tends to get overlooked when talking distance is the forgiveness element, the off centre strikes aren't so punished and so go further. You quoted the estimated difference on good strikes at 30 yards whereas my estimated difference on average strikes was 40 yards.

I was also using a new ball with both drivers, I'd guess that there'd be at least a 10 yard difference between a 70s ball and today's so we're now around 50 yards difference on the drive, all estimated of course!


I'm not saying that new technology is killing the game as plenty of people still play it, but it has massively changed the way it's played.

• The driver was a club that required a lot of skill to get the best from, now it's one of the easiest clubs to hit.
• Hybrids have replaced long irons in most peoples bags, even mid irons in quite a few, and make long approaches much easier.
• Irons are longer, higher launching (hence the loft change) with greater forgiveness.
• Putters have seen intense development in recent years, but whether most of it is actually useful I have my doubts.
• The ball not only goes further but it also goes straighter meaning that players can hit harder/longer without fear of finding the rough.

It is a different game and it has affected how we play older courses that were designed for shorter distances, although most have been tweaked over the years by pushing tees further back and moving hazards.

 

[Tommo21]

Distance is not ruining the game, it is just making certain course layouts obsolete. MacKenzie designed Augusta to be played a certain way. Old Tom Morris designed my home course to be played a certain way. That way is now obsolete. Greens that were positioned, and designed to recieve a longish iron, are now recieving wedges. Long irons need bigger greens, shorter irons need more compact, tricked up greens.
My course is re positioning bunkers. They have been there for 100 years, but are no longer in the correct position to be a hazard. They are moving tees back too.

The kids at my place bomb the ball miles. It is a different game. They too, are hitting 8 or 9 irons as second shots on par 5s. The hazards are not placed for these guys. They play a different golf course.

p

I agree with this......

At the 7th hole at Royal Musselburgh the fairway is about 22 paces at around 240 off the medal tee. The big hitters, and there is a lot more of them today with the ball and equipment, they hit the ball into a 40 pace wide fairway that's further up around the dogleg. To sort this situation the course would need redesigned. Most of the holes now favour the longer hitters as the hazards originally put in there no longer apply. Dunbar, a traditional links is very much the same. The 11th and the 14th for example has fairway bunkers that matter nothing to the modern length. These bunkers would need to move up 30 40 yards.

 

[Mark_Aged_42]

I don't know about killing the game, but the professional game is not so interesting to watch.
Bomb and gouge, followed by a gentle putt which travels 40 yards gets wearisome quickly.
I would love to see more holes played which require controlled fade or hook.
The Masters coverage was definitely enhanced on the holes where the view was from behind the player teeing off, and shot tracer revealed the shape of the shot.
The control these guys have when swinging so fast is incredible.

 

[Slab]

p

I agree with this......

At the 7th hole at Royal Musselburgh the fairway is about 22 paces at around 240 off the medal tee. The big hitters, and there is a lot more of them today with the ball and equipment, they hit the ball into a 40 pace wide fairway that's further up around the dogleg. To sort this situation the course would need redesigned. Most of the holes now favour the longer hitters as the hazards originally put in there no longer apply. Dunbar, a traditional links is very much the same. The 11th and the 14th for example has fairway bunkers that matter nothing to the modern length. These bunkers would need to move up 30 40 yards.

I guess the unknown is the effect on the overall game by specific examples

I'll play a long Ernie Els course this weekend and I know from past experience that as a shorter hitter most of the bunkers/hazards don't concern me in the slightest off the tee (not even the longest tee's, just the whites) so it can favour the poorer player as its the second shot that sails over them while the bigger hitters have to be wary on tee shots, so just the opposite of your example

Begs the question what was the original course design intention, punish/favour the better players or the shorter guys!
(the only way to apply equal to both is mixed tees for comps)

 

[Orikoru]

The article below, although quite old, has some interesting stuff on loft creep in irons.
http://www.leaderboard.com/loftinfo.htm

That was a good read. I liked the graph showing the loft equivalents to years ago. But surely this practise has basically come as far as it can? If they continue the process then even 4 irons would basically be putters and just cease to exist. Will they be selling irons sets that are just 6 to 9?? No wonder people carry as many as four wedges nowadays. Might as well call a pitching wedge a 10 iron really.

 

[patricks148]

I don't think its exactly killing the game, but making many great courses obsolete to Top Am and Pro comps.

My own home course is a prime example. For some reason the R&A and the club want us to hold the Walker Cup Again, but even at close to 6800 off the blue tee, its just not a challenge to top Ams if there is no wind and the greens at softish and receptive.
if the course was rock hard esp the greens the current length would be more than enough with a bit of wind and maybe a couple more well placed bunkers.

 

[Capella]

If they continue the process then even 4 irons would basically be putters and just cease to exist. Will they be selling irons sets that are just 6 to 9??

Actually, in the ladies game that has already more or less happened. I haven't seen an iron set advertised that contained a 4 iron forever. Even 5 irons have become a rarity. Most lady stock sets reach from 6 - SW or even 7 - SW (not including the gap wedge either). You are supposed to use hybrids instead of longer irons. It is actually one of the things that has kept me from updating my iron set for a while now. I love my 5 iron (and I have the matching 4 iron, but admitedly don't use it much, because my swing speed is too low to give me much extra distance on it compared to the 5). Of course, you will probably still be able to order the 5 iron (and the gap wedge) extra if you so care, but then a set that is advertised as costing something around 500 quid suddenly turns into 750 quid or more.

 

[Orikoru]

Actually, in the ladies game that has already more or less happened. I haven't seen an iron set advertised that contained a 4 iron forever. Even 5 irons have become a rarity. Most lady stock sets reach from 6 - SW or even 7 - SW (not including the gap wedge either). You are supposed to use hybrids instead of longer irons. It is actually one of the things that has kept me from updating my iron set for a while now. I love my 5 iron (and I have the matching 4 iron, but admitedly don't use it much, because my swing speed is too low to give me much extra distance on it compared to the 5). Of course, you will probably still be able to order the 5 iron (and the gap wedge) extra if you so care, but then a set that is advertised as costing something around 500 quid suddenly turns into 750 quid or more.

Men's sets still tend to be 4-P or 5-S I think. My first set of clubs was a full starter set but that had irons from 3-S, with a 3 & 5 wood but no hybrid (this was over a decade ago). My irons I got in 2016 were 5-S, but when I replaced them I just got 5-P and a different 56° wedge because I didn't really like the idea of having a random gap wedge that doesn't match the other irons. It made more sense to me for the irons to stop and then have two wedges, if that makes sense.

Anyway, my point was it'll have to stop somewhere. In 20 years time will people have a driver, wood, hybrid, 7, 8, 9 irons and then six wedges starting at 40°??