Fair comment

[cliveb]

Changing the ball by restricting distance would make no difference at all. Taking, for example, 10% off the distance would still mean big hitters like Bryson would still be 40-50 yards past Fitzpatrick and hitting an ‘easier’ club into the greens. I think loft and shaft restrictions would mean a more level playing field.

If golf wishes to retain the general principle that pros and amateurs have the same rules and equipment, then it's important that any changes to rein in the pros don't adversely affect club golfers. I'm not a long hitter, and if you make the ball travel less, that just makes my already difficult life even harder.

Bombers are only able to achieve the distances they do through very high swing speeds. And a very high swing speed generally requires a very stiff shaft. If the rules limited the maximum stiffness of the shaft, then any attempt to swing very fast would carry a much greater risk of failure. Anyone skillful enough to swing fast with a flexible shaft and maintain control deserves the rewards that brings. Meanwhile club golfers wouldn't be affected at all - we don't use shafts that stiff.

 

[Crow]

Club golfers hit the ball too far with today's technology, even those who claim not to be long hitters.

Everybody is hitting the ball further due to technology, the general principle that pros and amateurs have the same rules and equipment has become an anachronism.
Amateurs aren't prepared to give up their extra yardage yet want to see Pros reined back, you can't do that if we're all playing the same equipment.

 

[Orikoru]

Club golfers hit the ball too far with today's technology, even those who claim not to be long hitters.

Everybody is hitting the ball further due to technology, the general principle that pros and amateurs have the same rules and equipment has become an anachronism.
Amateurs aren't prepared to give up their extra yardage yet want to see Pros reined back, you can't do that if we're all playing the same equipment.

There are plenty of par 4s I can't reach in two so how is it possible that I hit it 'too far'.

 

[Crow]

There are plenty of par 4s I can't reach in two so how is it possible that I hit it 'too far'.

You're a 16 handicap, at that level not all par 4s should be reachable in two, but the gains made using modern technology make people think that they should be able to reach all par 4s in two, and when golfers improve to single figures they expect to be able to reach most par 5s in two, and indeed they often can.

 

[Orikoru]

You're a 16 handicap, at that level not all par 4s should be reachable in two, but the gains made using modern technology make people think that they should be able to reach all par 4s in two, and when golfers improve to single figures they expect to be able to reach most par 5s in two, and indeed they often can.

I suppose it's just my age/generation then, I've always viewed par for the hole as including two putts. So any par 4 would be two shots to the green and two putts. But from what you're saying, from the early times of golf there were actually holes where they expected a scratch player to only require one putt?

 

[slowhand]

If golf wishes to retain the general principle that pros and amateurs have the same rules and equipment, then it's important that any changes to rein in the pros don't adversely affect club golfers. I'm not a long hitter, and if you make the ball travel less, that just makes my already difficult life even harder.

Bombers are only able to achieve the distances they do through very high swing speeds. And a very high swing speed generally requires a very stiff shaft. If the rules limited the maximum stiffness of the shaft, then any attempt to swing very fast would carry a much greater risk of failure. Anyone skillful enough to swing fast with a flexible shaft and maintain control deserves the rewards that brings. Meanwhile club golfers wouldn't be affected at all - we don't use shafts that stiff.

I'm pretty sure that the recent research shows that the majority of amateurs aren't seeing any of the distance gains that the top level amateurs and pros are. I believe that this is due to the fact that we don't swing the club hard enough to maximise the trampoline effect off the face (although I'm happy to be corrected on this point). I am at most a club longer now with modern irons than I was when I played back in the late 80s/early 90s, and that I put down to stronger lofts. As for driving, I'm pretty much where I was

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I suppose it's just my age/generation then, I've always viewed par for the hole as including two putts. So any par 4 would be two shots to the green and two putts. But from what you're saying, from the early times of golf there were actually holes where they expected a scratch player to only require one putt?

No, he means that on your handicap you aren’t expected to hit the green in two , but three, and then 2 putt.
Your shots allow for missed greens, in theory.

 

[Orikoru]

No, he means that on your handicap you aren’t expected to hit the green in two , but three, and then 2 putt.
Your shots allow for missed greens, in theory.

No that doesn't make sense because your driving distance doesn't increase in line with your handicap decreasing does it? So handicap doesn't come into it. He said that everyone hits it 'too far' nowadays because of equipment.

 

[Crow]

No that doesn't make sense because your driving distance doesn't increase in line with your handicap decreasing does it? So handicap doesn't come into it. He said that everyone hits it 'too far' nowadays because of equipment.

There's a mix of both elements, handicap golfers have always had par 4 holes which they can't normally reach in two but the gains from modern equipment has reduced the number of those holes on a sliding basis dependent on your actual handicap/skill level combined with how technology impacts your particular game.

But in general all golfers are hitting the ball much further than they used to, which to me is too far, others will have different views on what constitutes "too far".

 

[clubchamp98]

No that doesn't make sense because your driving distance doesn't increase in line with your handicap decreasing does it? So handicap doesn't come into it. He said that everyone hits it 'too far' nowadays because of equipment.

I am 63 now and I hit the ball more or less the same distance as when I was 30.
The technology has done that .
If I hit a persimmon wood now I would be 30/40 yds behind a modern driver.
I think that’s what he means.

 

[Blue in Munich]

No that doesn't make sense because your driving distance doesn't increase in line with your handicap decreasing does it? So handicap doesn't come into it. He said that everyone hits it 'too far' nowadays because of equipment.

Your handicap is there to cover your deficiencies, be that being too short or too wide; it is accuracy related as much as distance related. You may be long enough to reach a par 4 in 2, but not accurate enough to guarantee hitting the green with the club in hand.

 

[Papas1982]

No that doesn't make sense because your driving distance doesn't increase in line with your handicap decreasing does it? So handicap doesn't come into it. He said that everyone hits it 'too far' nowadays because of equipment.

No your driving won’t necessarily get much longer, although for your handicap to lower obviously certain attributes will increase. But it could simply mean that as a lower handicapper you can hit more greens with a 2nd shot with say a 3 wood.

Id imagine most long par fours are still around 450 right? Most average golfers can take that out with driver, 3 wood. if hit well.

 

[Orikoru]

Your handicap is there to cover your deficiencies, be that being too short or too wide; it is accuracy related as much as distance related. You may be long enough to reach a par 4 in 2, but not accurate enough to guarantee hitting the green with the club in hand.

Yeah I know, that's exactly why I said handicap doesn't come into this discussion, since we were purely talking about distance.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Yeah I know, that's exactly why I said handicap doesn't come into this discussion, since we were purely talking about distance.

But it does if it's distance that's the issue rather than accuracy; one very good former single figure player at my club is now up at 11, simply because he's lost distance. Distance may come into it but it's not the only factor.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

As a general rule, the further you hit it, then lower your handicap potential is.

As with any generalisation there are people who do not fit but as a broad brush its fairly true.

Playing with old clubs are hard work but great fun, if you ever get the chance try it out, don't think I have yet managed to hit a decent wood shot off the fairway for example. If I played with old woods, then I would not reach any par 5s in two and probably 2 par 4s at my home club would not be reachable(At St Daves, the difference would be even greater, as a lot of the par 4 are over 400 yards, so even less likely to reach, probably 7-8 holes not reachable, that hurts your scoring tbh), whereas with modern clubs I can reach all of them (whether I do is another matter, depends on my skill on those shots on the day)

The pros have been doing it for years, normally the majority at the top of the pile are the longest, just the way it is and always will be. Whether the balance is correct now, is something I think it is not.

 

[robinthehood]

Intresting that the greatest ever golfer, Jack Nicklaus was also the bomber of his day

 

[Grizzly]

And have no love for bomb-and-gouge golf or courses that lend themselves to that, but hitting long and straight is a skill

You see, I think you've nailed it right there.

I personally don't think it matters what the winning number is - whether its a fight for level par or a sprint to -20, in essence the players all play on the same track (save for any weather variations across the day) and the best player wins.

I personally don't mind some of the long hitting - it is after all as much the peak of athletic development as it of technology.

What I do mind is courses that are set up to allow players to bomb away with impunity. If you have 60 yards of fairway, a first cut that is basically a snooker baize and "deep" rough that is barely half the ball's height, your average Champ doesn't stop to think, he just opens his shoulders and swings as hard as he can. If, on the other hand, ten yards off line meant you'd need a search party to find the ball when you are standing next to it, if there were deep bunkers at 340 and a fairway that narrows to a sliver....

 

[pool888]

With the money available you cant blame anyone for maximizing their ability and chances of winning. Players that are athletes gain an advantage off the tee, but it's not all about length I've never heard of anyone from the long drive championships being successful on tour. Here are the Tour driving distance stats for season 2020 with Bryson on top. Look at the top 9, you have some huge names like De Chambeau, Wolff, McIlroy, but half of the others I've barely heard off, they're certainly not contending week in week out, which if pure distance is such a big advantage they should be.

https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.101.y2020.html

 

[sunshine]

Shots gained has definitively evidenced that bigger hitters prosper,

That is because they are better players.

The world's best golfers are also the best ball strikers so have the ability to hit it further.

 

[Ethan]

Intresting that the greatest ever golfer, Jack Nicklaus was also the bomber of his day

But Nicklaus was not a one-dimensional golfer, and generally played fairly conservatively, choosing when to use his power.