the Distance Debate - should the authorities act

[Diamond]

It was interesting that the only mistake by Bryson that actually cost him was the ball that trickled to the stones OOB.
The courses can have more of these strategically placed to benefit accuracy over distance. Allow nature to stop the bombs happening on every hole.

 

[harpo_72]

Ryan's stats for final round, so John Daly's distances are now considered short? Says it all really.

View attachment 31526

Daly was hitting a 240cc wood, he had days where he could not hit the middle. These boys have them as well but the clubs just drop off small amounts ... watch Nicklaus vs Snead .. when they got a connection it was long when they didn’t it was 10-15% shorter ... that just doesn’t happen nowadays.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I looked at the British Masters score from last year and it was -16 that Kinhult won on. Now Walton Heath is an oldish club and perhaps not as long as some of the ones on tour but it had a severe defence with its heather. Hard to still smash it miles from that regardless of who you are. Now of course you can't grow that on every course, but even places like Wentworth, where pros can now reach all par 5's in ease has its defence with ditches and trees down the side of most fairways and so there is a degree more premium on accuracy.

Kinhult won at Hillside

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Kinhult won at Hillside

2018 at Walton Heath. In fact that winning score by Pepperall was even lower so despite WH not being the longest, there is a premium on avoiding the trees/heather

 

[Deleted member 1147]

2018 at Walton Heath. In fact that winning score by Pepperall was even lower so despite WH not being the longest, there is a premium on avoiding the trees/heather

What’s that got to do with Kinhult winning at Hillside last year?

 

[Slab]

What is it that we actually have a problem with when some players hit it so far? Because I don’t believe it’s simply a problem in itself that some can hit it 350

1. Is it because players can clear (course designed) intended fairway hazards with ease
2. Is it that they reach Par 5’s in 2 with impunity
3. Is it because a tournament winning score of -23 (& lower) is just too low
4. Is it that when its well offline it’s still a recoverable shot for them to get to the green

1. It’s not like being in a fairway bunker 150 from the green is much of a hazard to these guys anyway, sure they’d rather be on grass but it’s not a deal breaker for them
2. If most of the field can get home in two with mid iron 2nd shots on a Par 5 just change it to a Par 4 for the event & adjust course Par
3. This’ll be sorted by the change above, who cares if Par is 72 or 68 for a once a year elite tour event
4. Internal OOB and/or better planting well off the fairways to make it more penal for way offline hits of any length

None of the above need any equipment change/ball restriction & big hitters keep 100% of any advantage their distance gives them over the field, if they keep it on the fairway

 

[Grant85]

Some very interesting comments and another good, well thought debate. I do think the resort courses and some of the regular PGA tour events simply aren't up to the job because they struggle to present a course tough enough for the week the circus comes to town. How long would it take to grow the rough brutal enough to prevent BdC hitting 8 irons from their thick stuff or has he simply now got the brute strength to muscle it from anywhere? What is the cost implication and how much would a course get from the tour as an incentive to toughen the course up and what would the detrimental effect be for members playing it in the harder state for months prior to the even and after until it is thinned out. DOn't forget they are still paying their memberships to play a leisure past time.

I looked at the British Masters score from last year and it was -16 that Kinhult won on. Now Walton Heath is an oldish club and perhaps not as long as some of the ones on tour but it had a severe defence with its heather. Hard to still smash it miles from that regardless of who you are. Now of course you can't grow that on every course, but even places like Wentworth, where pros can now reach all par 5's in ease has its defence with ditches and trees down the side of most fairways and so there is a degree more premium on accuracy.

I think the problem is the PGA has developed to be a bomb it and then throw short irons dart like into greens. The only real time this changes is a US Open and to some extent the USPGA although it is noticeable that in the week(s) before these events they tend to play a course that has been toughened more than normal to give players a taste of the major event to come. For me, a lot of these US course are now fixed venues on tour and as has been shown when that is threatened the club/community will find a way to keep it on the rota. Being fixed though unless steps are taken to make them more bomber resistant, and the cost implications for someone, somewhere down the line, then we'll simply see scores going longer and players hitting driver/wedge and it coming down to a putting contest week in, week out. The only simple option is bifurcation especially with the ball but I'd like the driver and fairway woods made smaller too. These are suppose to be the most skilled in the world so let them display all the facets of the game not just drive, wedge putt

Definitely an issue with all golf tours is that almost no course is designed solely for pro events. Maybe Augusta and you could argue there are other massively suitable places such as Carnoustie, Sawgrass, Muirfield, Pinehurst no 2, Bayhill, Royal Melbourne. But ultimately these places are still catering for members / visitors / tourists for most of their rounds and are reliant on dry weather and bit of wind.

So what you end up with is a course that where they can, the holes are lengthened as far back as they can go. Where they can, they will leave the rough to grow as much as possible. Possibly add in a bit of OB that isn't always there. They will speed the greens up and tuck the pins. They will fill the bunkers with loads of sand.

Nowadays, the pro game is so far removed from the member / tourist game that even that is often not enough. I think we are going to see the emergence of more in the way of purpose built courses that are set up to primarily cater for professional tournaments. That will give architects a different way of thinking when positioning bunkers and deciding on the size and protection of a green.

But even then, you won't want every par 4 to be 450+ yards and every par 5 at 625+. In my view it will still come back to finding a balance in the equipment that means players can be challenged with all aspects of their game.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

To pro golfers Par means nothing, all that matters is the total number of shots taken.
Par is only important to us handicappers, and the tv audience. As it gives both a yardstick for measuring; ourselves against our own ability, and one players score against another (it’s easier to say someone’s 3 under after 16 holes than they’ve had 69 shots so far).

So par 4 or 5 doesn’t matter, they just want to take as few shots as possible.

 

[garyinderry]

I think a lot of the one dimensional short game stuff is due to the modern green speeds. They are just lightening quick these days that the pros actually need to apply some spin on the ball to control it.

They use lofted wedges when playing shots pros in the past would have run the shot up with a 7 iron.

 

[Orikoru]

I think more out of bounds on the pro tour would be a brilliant idea. If they make any of the roped crowd areas out of bounds that would (a) possibly reign in the bombers a little bit if they're getting OOB on wayward hits, and (b) protect the crowd a little bit more from taking a golf ball to the head. Sounds like a win win to me.

 

[clubchamp98]

One thing that could stop is the line of sight relief.
So a pro hits it behind a scoreboard / grandstand he gets relief as that’s not usually there.
But another way of thinking is “ it was there when he teed off” so if he dosnt get relief he may think about it a bit more.
They need to be punished more for missing by 70yds.
How that’s done is a blank sheet but something needs to happen.
But taking someone’s advantage away ( length) is not the way imo.
Make them more accurate or pay the price.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Im against having different equipment for the pros than amateurs.

If changes are to be made to limit distance, or to make control of distance harder, they should apply across the board.

Personally, I don’t think any changes are really required. I’d prefer to see courses with a bit more rough and to have more internal out of bounds to punish anything that is ridiculously wayward. However I appreciate the skill of being able to hit a ball that hard and that far with accuracy. It’s not all down to the equipment; these guys are seriously athletic and seriously skilful.

I agree with the point that golf becoming one dimensional would be boring, but that’s a problem for the tours to solve by selecting courses that can’t simply be dominated by distance, there are plenty out there I’m sure. As it stands, courses are giving the pga tour what it wants because your average spectator likes seeing drivers being smashed miles and birdies galore.

 

[Grant85]

What is it that we actually have a problem with when some players hit it so far? Because I don’t believe it’s simply a problem in itself that some can hit it 350

1. Is it because players can clear (course designed) intended fairway hazards with ease
2. Is it that they reach Par 5’s in 2 with impunity
3. Is it because a tournament winning score of -23 (& lower) is just too low
4. Is it that when its well offline it’s still a recoverable shot for them to get to the green

1. It’s not like being in a fairway bunker 150 from the green is much of a hazard to these guys anyway, sure they’d rather be on grass but it’s not a deal breaker for them
2. If most of the field can get home in two with mid iron 2nd shots on a Par 5 just change it to a Par 4 for the event & adjust course Par
3. This’ll be sorted by the change above, who cares if Par is 72 or 68 for a once a year elite tour event
4. Internal OOB and/or better planting well off the fairways to make it more penal for way offline hits of any length

None of the above need any equipment change/ball restriction & big hitters keep 100% of any advantage their distance gives them over the field, if they keep it on the fairway

Problems as follows;
* not testing all aspects of someone's game. You can become a pretty decent top 50 player & even win a few tournaments with an average short game or putting game and you pretty much never have to hit an iron longer than a 7
* losing diversity of golfer, especially the shot shapers like Mickelson, Seve, Bubba and short game wizards like Donald, Trevino, Spieth
* golf courses keep getting bigger and use up more land and resource and take more time to play (this will filter down to members places, but appreciate there isn't much building or renovations in the UK)

Obviously if you've read through the thread and you don't see the problems, you don't see the problems.

I'm sure pro golf will continue (especially the PGA Tour) without wanting to address these issues and enough people will accept it for what it is. In my view it will and is getting more boring and we will have fewer 'clashes of styles' in tournaments as it will become almost impossible for someone to get on tour and stay on tour without hitting it huge distances.

 

[pendodave]

Bryson averaged 107 into the par 4s last week. That's a 3 club challenge for over half the round. Not much of an examination of a golfer's skill set, and not particularly entertaining once the novelty wears off.
Genuinely perplexed that folks want to bastardise golf courses when playing a pro ball and/or limiting pro equipment is not particularly difficult and doesn't effect anyone else.

 

[pendodave]

The other issue is health. Does golf really want to be a sport where to succeed requires players to become human fois gras geese??
This is a dreadful direction to go down.

 

[Orikoru]

Im against having different equipment for the pros than amateurs.

If changes are to be made to limit distance, or to make control of distance harder, they should apply across the board.

Personally, I don’t think any changes are really required. I’d prefer to see courses with a bit more rough and to have more internal out of bounds to punish anything that is ridiculously wayward. However I appreciate the skill of being able to hit a ball that hard and that far with accuracy. It’s not all down to the equipment; these guys are seriously athletic and seriously skilful.

I agree with the point that golf becoming one dimensional would be boring, but that’s a problem for the tours to solve by selecting courses that can’t simply be dominated by distance, there are plenty out there I’m sure. As it stands, courses are giving the pga tour what it wants because your average spectator likes seeing drivers being smashed miles and birdies galore.

What do you mean by across the board?? If you mean literally all of golf, then I can tell you if I had to start using a distance limited ball then I'd just give up golf altogether. The idea of hitting driver, fairway wood for every single hole doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

 

[Grant85]

But taking someone’s advantage away ( length) is not the way imo.
.

I'll say this once more, changes to the equipment will not take someone's advantage away. The longer hitters will still be the longer hitters. Like in 1990 with Daly, Norman, Love III. They just won't be 60 yards past major champions and former world no. 1s.

As I've said, the bombers have benefited disproportionately with equipment advances and the equipment is already very heavily regulated.

Strange how very little was said about certain grooves being banned in 1990 and 2010 - despite robbing many pros of their advantage at the time and reducing R&D of may manufacturers to history. Harrington won 3 majors with his grooves and reckoned it was worth a couple of shots a tournament. He spent hours working on different combinations of irons depending on what course he was playing, the size of the greens, length of his approaches etc. Probably far more time than Bryson has spent in the gym the past 6 months.

Same thing with putter anchoring. Most people accepted this was a fair enough ruling and people had to find a way round, despite it having been part of the game for as longer than many people were playing. Despite the likes of Webb Simpson and Keegan Bradley using it for their entire career. It basically cost Carl Petterson his career, who was a top ranked player prior to the ban and nearly won the PGA Championship in 2012.

 

[sunshine]

Athletes in general are getting much stronger and bigger. Look at the size of rugby players today compared to 20 years ago. Golf is following the trend, players like Koepka and McIlroy spend a lot of time lifting weights. BDC has just taken it to the next level.

 

[Grant85]

What do you mean by across the board?? If you mean literally all of golf, then I can tell you if I had to start using a distance limited ball then I'd just give up golf altogether. The idea of hitting driver, fairway wood for every single hole doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

I think you'd be surprised. the distance limited ball will not impact shorter hitters significantly. Even assuming it is brought in at this level - which no one is talking about at present.

 

[clubchamp98]

What do you mean by across the board?? If you mean literally all of golf, then I can tell you if I had to start using a distance limited ball then I'd just give up golf altogether. The idea of hitting driver, fairway wood for every single hole doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

So you will be packing it in before you qualify for the seniors.

It must be possible to manufacture a ball that is the same distance at 90 mph but is slightly curtailed when hit at 130mph.
I don’t think it should be , but possible nonetheless.