the Distance Debate - should the authorities act

[Grant85]

I think bifurcation will ultimately make the game even more distance focused. If the shorter players on Tour are now struggling to reach Par 5's in two with the reduced ball they're going to struggle to compete week on week even more, and the push to get even longer and get even more speed to negate the new ball as much as possible will come in. The big hitters will still be the big hitters and so will continue to dominate as they do now.

I think things can be done but I don't think the game needs to change in such an extreme way to "fix" the pro game. Things like getting rid of the rough they leave at the bottom of slopes to stop balls going in the water, having more OB punishing the wildly off-line tee shots, cutting the fairways into the players to reduce roll-out, firming up the greens, more punishing rough, all these things could be implemented first before we make the drastic change to split the professional game apart from the amateur game. But personally I don't see a huge issue, very little has changed in the last 20 years in regards to scoring average, and distance is important, but there's more to it than just distance, as Cam Champ proved at the end of last season.

I think you underestimate the difference the modern ball has made and how going back to something that behaved similar to an early 90s ball would influence the pro game.

Of course distance is important and the longer hitters should have an advantage - especially if they are accurate enough.

But a ball that spins more would be a bigger issue for the longer hitters. It would probably force them to play with less loft in their driver (or reign back their speed a bit) and bring bigger penalties for poor shots, in terms of being further offline.

It would just squeeze the premium on distance and bring in accuracy, course management and more premium on iron play and short game as important aspects of scoring.

 

[Imurg]

If the point of all this is to give the short hitters more of a chance then whatever rollback you make is going to hurt them as well..unless you have a ball that goes a maximum of 300 yards...who honestly wants that..
Take 10% off Bryson and he's still well over 310..take 10% off a 290 guy and he's at 260..still 50 yards behind so hitting 3 more clubs into greens...as they were before the rollback..hitting 3 more clubs than Bryson..
If B can hit the ball as far as he does and keep it on the fairway he should be applauded and allowed to retain an advantage he's identified and exploited.
Grow the grass on the fairway a little to reduce roll, don't cut it so fine for 5 yards off the fairway, 10 yards off the fairway make it 3 inches deep, 20 yards off the fairway make it 8.
Make them hit it straight, make rough penalising enough so it costs you to go in it.
Whatever rollback is tried, within 3 or 4 years, the OEMs will have found a way around it and we'll be having this conversation again.
Grow the grass at one tournament..see what happens.

 

[Jimaroid]

The point, as I see it, is not to change the chances amongst the field of players. The point is to avoid the game outgrowing the courses.

The strength of the argument to decrease ball distance is that it puts many original hazards back into play, both off the tee and into greens.

 

[garyinderry]

The point, as I see it, is not to change the chances amongst the field of players. The point is to avoid the game outgrowing the courses.

The strength of the argument to decrease ball distance is that it puts many original hazards back into play, both off the tee and into greens.

Exactly. Bryson is hitting 3 or 4 clubs less than the shorter hitters. He still deserves to hit that if they roll the ball back.

He just might have to navigate a bunker or two which he is currently flying by far too easily.

 

[Orikoru]

If the point of all this is to give the short hitters more of a chance then whatever rollback you make is going to hurt them as well..unless you have a ball that goes a maximum of 300 yards...who honestly wants that..
Take 10% off Bryson and he's still well over 310..take 10% off a 290 guy and he's at 260..still 50 yards behind so hitting 3 more clubs into greens...as they were before the rollback..hitting 3 more clubs than Bryson..
If B can hit the ball as far as he does and keep it on the fairway he should be applauded and allowed to retain an advantage he's identified and exploited.
Grow the grass on the fairway a little to reduce roll, don't cut it so fine for 5 yards off the fairway, 10 yards off the fairway make it 3 inches deep, 20 yards off the fairway make it 8.
Make them hit it straight, make rough penalising enough so it costs you to go in it.
Whatever rollback is tried, within 3 or 4 years, the OEMs will have found a way around it and we'll be having this conversation again.
Grow the grass at one tournament..see what happens.

I don't think it's about helping shorter hitters, it's about helping the golf courses so they're played like they were originally intended. Not that I'm for it - I just think we're going down the wrong path if we start talking about helping out shorter hitters, that's not what it's about at all.

As you say, I'm more for making the rough difficult and the crowd areas out of bounds and then see who's still going for 350 yard drives.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The point, as I see it, is not to change the chances amongst the field of players. The point is to avoid the game outgrowing the courses.

The strength of the argument to decrease ball distance is that it puts many original hazards back into play, both off the tee and into greens.

I think you are spot on. Most of these courses are maxed out with no real estate to extend further so it's important that golf tries to find a way to bring the hazards back into use. I think there is also a need to make offline shots more punishable and especially on the PGA that simply isn't happening. Is it just about the ball or could we make the driver/woods much smaller for the pros (and would that also have a limitation of some degree on distance - along with a reduced distance ball?)

 

[Swinglowandslow]

What is interesting, the more I think about it, is how many, if not most ,of the Tours courses do not have many features which impose unplayable lies.
Wherever they hit it off the straight shot, they still end up somewhere where they can make a swing of some sort.
There may be trees,but they are big enough to swing under etc
When was the last time a pro finished up in the middle of a big bush?
I would like to see a whole load of undergrowth introduced at these long distances so that the players know that going offline there means they probably will not be able to play the ball, if found.
I suppose the argument against such courses is that it interferes with spectators viewing , but I'm sure that could be accommodated with some good planning.
At the moment, watching Muirfield village, apart from the water, there doesn't seem to be many places off the fairway where the players cannot have some sort of swing at the ball. But, then, maybe I haven't seen ( limited by TV coverage) enough of the course?

 

[davidy233]

What is interesting, the more I think about it, is how many, if not most ,of the Tours courses do not have many features which impose unplayable lies.
Wherever they hit it off the straight shot, they still end up somewhere where they can make a swing of some sort.
There may be trees,but they are big enough to swing under etc
When was the last time a pro finished up in the middle of a big bush?
I would like to see a whole load of undergrowth introduced at these long distances so that the players know that going offline there means they probably will not be able to play the ball, if found.
I suppose the argument against such courses is that it interferes with spectators viewing , but I'm sure that could be accommodated with some good planning.
At the moment, watching Muirfield village, apart from the water, there doesn't seem to be many places off the fairway where the players cannot have some sort of swing at the ball. But, then, maybe I haven't seen ( limited by TV coverage) enough of the course?

My knowledge of courses in the States isn't fantastic, I've only played had a dozen, but from that and the stuff I've seen on TV it seems the norm out there for there to be loads of room under trees and in the main a lack of bushes anywhere near in play - the exception being to the left of the 1th at Augusta.

I suppose they could always play the tournaments at Bandon where there's gorse.

 

[clubchamp98]

My knowledge of courses in the States isn't fantastic, I've only played had a dozen, but from that and the stuff I've seen on TV it seems the norm out there for there to be loads of room under trees and in the main a lack of bushes anywhere near in play - the exception being to the left of the 1th at Augusta.

I suppose they could always play the tournaments at Bandon where there's gorse.

Most resort courses are like that because there are thing that can kill or seriously hurt you.
Snakes ,alligators and spiders to name a few.
So these resorts don’t want their guests getting hurt.
But if you go out into the sticks there are plenty of places that if you are ten yards offline you never see your ball again.
Most of these are red stakes so you don’t have to go back to the tee.
But the tour would never play these places because you wouldn’t get many spectators on the property.
So it’s a trade of between gate money and the type of course you play.
Fairways like billiard tables and forty yards wide just play into big hitters hands.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Surely even in long grass there would be the potential for snakes etc so does that negate growing the rough much longer as well? It doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for US Open courses which is perhaps the only time we see very deep, almost unplayable lies so perhaps the wildlife issue isn't that much of a problem.

As much as I am not a fan of internal OOB, is there an argument for introducing them on some courses to add a cheap and removable hazard so once the tour leaves town the course could be reinstated as normal for members.

 

[clubchamp98]

Surely even in long grass there would be the potential for snakes etc so does that negate growing the rough much longer as well? It doesn't seem to be too much of a problem for US Open courses which is perhaps the only time we see very deep, almost unplayable lies so perhaps the wildlife issue isn't that much of a problem.

As much as I am not a fan of internal OOB, is there an argument for introducing them on some courses to add a cheap and removable hazard so once the tour leaves town the course could be reinstated as normal for members.

Snakes like a quiet life and stay away from places with lots of activity , mowers, people etc
Belive me if the pro shop tells you there are rattle snakes in the rough you don’t go in there.
It also depends what state you are playing in.
I mainly play in Florida and you don’t go in the woods.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Snakes like a quiet life and stay away from places with lots of activity , mowers, people etc
Belive me if the pro shop tells you there are rattle snakes in the rough you don’t go in there.
It also depends what state you are playing in.
I mainly play in Florida and you don’t go in the woods.

I know most snakes would rather get out of the way (although perhaps not the brown snake or black mamba's if you watch some nature documentaries) and I agree if you are told not to go in the rough you don't. I have heard similar stories about playing in South Africa too and also to be wary of getting too near water hazards because of crocodiles. Makes a bit of goose poo on the green seem less of an irritation

 

[clubchamp98]

I know most snakes would rather get out of the way (although perhaps not the brown snake or black mamba's if you watch some nature documentaries) and I agree if you are told not to go in the rough you don't. I have heard similar stories about playing in South Africa too and also to be wary of getting too near water hazards because of crocodiles. Makes a bit of goose poo on the green seem less of an irritation

The yanks are used to this though and they don’t really bother with the wildlife.
Scares me and I stay well away.
Played with a yank once just about to swing and a three foot black snake came up between his legs , he picked it up just behind the head carried it about 10yds and put it back on the ground.
“It’s only a baby grass snake “ He said.
We were hiding behind the buggy.

 

[davidy233]

The yanks are used to this though and they don’t really bother with the wildlife.
Scares me and I stay well away.
Played with a yank once just about to swing and a three foot black snake came up between his legs , he picked it up just behind the head carried it about 10yds and put it back on the ground.
“It’s only a baby grass snake “ He said.
We were hiding behind the buggy.

Speaking of snakes - at least one tour venue (Torrey Pines) is quite well known for rattlers in the long grass they have around the outside of the tees - there must be plenty around the desert courses in Arizona too.

 

[BubbaP]

Don't know if they exist but I'd be interested how the peak height of driver ball flights have changed over the years.
Just from memory I suspect one of the biggest changes is how dog legs don't really apply any more as the pros just go over rather than around.

 

[Crow]

Don't know if they exist but I'd be interested how the peak height of driver ball flights have changed over the years.
Just from memory I suspect one of the biggest changes is how dog legs don't really apply any more as the pros just go over rather than around.

I just had a quick check in my copy of "The Search for the Perfect Swing" published in 1968, one of the first scientific studies of golf and an excellent book.

There's a lot of data on drives but not much at all on peak height, one diagram showing a "normal" driver trajectory was peaking at around 75 feet.

 

[Sweep]

Sooner or later the authorities will have to act. Last Sunday Bryson hit an 8 iron 230 yds. Other pro’s will now take notice. Expect a few more appearing next year with a bulked appearance. This won’t stop here.

How such distance impacts the amateur game has been much debated. What isn’t mentioned so much is how it affects the tours. How much longer can we expect St Andrews to host Opens for example? The top pro’s were already finding it too easy. So they either change the iconic course or change the pro game.

These days the average amateur game bears little or no resemblance to the top pro game, in ability, equipment, fitness, well in any form really. That ship has sailed. A reigned in tour ball is needed. The big hitters will still be big hitters and any rewards gained by big hitting will still be go their way.

When the longest Par 4 (460yds) on a decent 6300 yard course is reduced to two 8 irons it’s time to act. Seemingly now, tour pro’s are hitting any club in the bag an average of around 100yds further than the average amateur. If we are playing 6,300yd courses then they should be playing 8,100yd tracks. Detroit last week was 7,300. The longest course they play is the South Course at Torrey Pines at 7698yds. The degree of difficulty for the tour pro’s playing tour venues is probably comparable to the average amateur male playing from the ladies or forward tees at their local club. In other words, your monthly medal for you off your competition tees is harder than a tour event for them.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I must say, I had not thought about snakes etc when calling for more bushes etc.
It is a valid reason why these spectator oriented venues are like they are.
Organisers cannot create scenarios where spectators and players may be wandering about with "critters" like that waiting to say hello?

 

[Orikoru]

Sooner or later the authorities will have to act. Last Sunday Bryson hit an 8 iron 230 yds. Other pro’s will now take notice. Expect a few more appearing next year with a bulked appearance. This won’t stop here.

It was always an option though. Why has nobody else done it to that extent? There must be a reason. Perhaps they were worried about flexibility and longevity if they did, and Bryson just isn't bothered about that?

 

[harpo_72]

It was always an option though. Why has nobody else done it to that extent? There must be a reason. Perhaps they were worried about flexibility and longevity if they did, and Bryson just isn't bothered about that?

No he has worked out that his swing is simple and doesn’t have issues with shear and twist .. the dangers for him lie in the gym and in the diet .. we will see others trying but I would say they won’t make it. Bryson May have set a new blueprint