Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Distance Regulation

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    As previously mentioned the use of graphite was also a factor especially after Tiger made the switch

    So basically 27% of the increase can be attributed to simply using the club more.

    Relevant from report:

    Over the period of the study, driving distances increased for these UK-based male players from all handicap categories, with the overall combined average increasing from 200 yards in 1996 to 216 yards in 2019.

    The overall increase in driver usage accounts for approximately 4 yards of the 15-yard increase in driving distance.


  • Options
    #63
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    The graph just shows this was an issue back in 2000


    that's where the jump is


    its weird, its like around 2000 they started limiting the COR on drivers


    so golf balls are the same and drivers are the same



    its weird how golf survived since then


    also look at the pro distances between 2003 and today, feck all difference, and its the Korn Ferry tour is where all the monsters are, maybe there's a younger group playing that


  • Options
    #64
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well its a club less on every shot for the average guy, I think that's pretty significant, especially when you consider the guys at the longer end.

    I seriously dont think anyone can argue that the longer guys of today are hitting it far further than the longer guys of 20 years ago. This is as true for the am game as the pro game.


    Its how the course was designed to be played?:confused:



    If everyone is hitting it 10 yards further then its not providing the same challenge for anyone.

    Your last two comments dont make sense to me and are contradictory to each other.

    Can you provide an example of a hole that is no longer being played by amateurs as it was designed to be played?


  • Options
    #65
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    To maintain the integrity of the game and keep costs sensible.

    Nonsense


  • Options
    #66
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Russman wrote: »
    WRT providing the same challenge as in the past, I totally get that and tbh a large part of me agrees with it, but at the same time, why should this be the case ? Where does "the past" sit ? 1970 ? 1980 ? 1990 ? I'm not having a go, or even necessarily disagreeing, just exploring it really.
    Couldn't the same argument have been made when titanium drivers and graphite shafts came out ? They probably were in fairness. I dunno, who gets to decide where golf's limits sit ? Why do the likes of Nicklaus, Player etc get to effectively say that golf in their day is where the balance of skill and power should lie ?
    I don't think it limits skill and power though, it just brings the limits back a bit.
    My main reasoning behind it is that you cant just keep extending courses, most wont have the land or the money to keep doing this, even environmentally it doesnt make sense to have acres of grass that is irrelevant to the playing of the game, but has to be maintained because its the first 100 yards of the hole that everyone walks.
    Russman wrote: »
    I suppose tennis did reduce the speed of balls a few years ago, without much of a fuss, I've no idea if weekend players use different equipment there or not.

    And theres isnt even a distance game (its a power one)
    I said it earlier, but how would GAA survive if players could hit the ball 25% further than they do today due to improvements in technology (that already exist today)? Are you going to rebuild all the stadia?

    Or if a new Javelin was invented that added 25% to the distance it flew...what would be the point? The long guys are still long, the short guys are still short, but the whole thing happens in a controlled & sensible environment. Otherwise why have any limits on any facet of golf technology?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Nonsense

    I can't find a single point in your reply to disagree with.


  • Options
    #68
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Your last two comments dont make sense to me and are contradictory to each other.
    Nope, you are jus misreading them.
    If everyone is hitting it 10 yards further, then no one is playing the course as it was designed to be played.
    It's not providing the same, originally designed challenge to anyone anymore.
    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Can you provide an example of a hole that is no longer being played by amateurs as it was designed to be played?

    Sure, look at most doglegs on a parkland course built before 1980.

    1st & 7th in Milltown, 18th in Castle, 5th &10th in Grange, 10th in Beechpark, 12th in Lisheen (and thats only built since 2002), 10th in Bray, 3rd in Elm Park.

    and I'm sure there are hundreds more around the country.


  • Options
    #69
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Nope, you are jus misreading them.
    If everyone is hitting it 10 yards further, then no one is playing the course as it was designed to be played.
    It's not providing the same, originally designed challenge to anyone anymore.



    Sure, look at most doglegs on a parkland course built before 1980.

    1st & 7th in Milltown, 18th in Castle, 5th &10th in Grange, 10th in Beechpark, 12th in Lisheen (and thats only built since 2002), 10th in Bray, 3rd in Elm Park.

    and I'm sure there are hundreds more around the country.

    but even your graph showed this happened pre 2000 so how have all the courses survived until now why change it now


  • Options
    #70
    brick tamland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,431 ✭✭✭brick tamland


    ForeRight wrote: »
    Why not just leave it as it is and put a high premium on hitting fairways. Make the fairways much narrower and grow up the rough.
    I’m not talking to US open level toughness but they can adjust these courses as they please it seems.
    More so than just huge drives being the issue to me it’s more than that. It’s a skill to hit the ball that far but you shouldn’t be able to launch a wedge into the sky and land soft from the rough.

    Punish a missed fairway severely. If you can drive it 320yds and split the fairway you deserve your reward with that skill imo.

    There was a good bit on this on a podcast (nolayingup I think), that I listened to last year around the time of Bryson's US Open win.

    If you make the fairways really narrow the players are equally likely to miss the fairway with a long iron as they are with a driver, and hence they would all prefer to be 350 yards down and hitting gap wedge into the green, rather than 250 yards down and hitting 6 iron from the same type of rough. Most of them trust the driver off the tee more than any other club. So in effect having really narrow fairways suits the longer players more.


  • Options
    #71
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Nope, you are jus misreading them.
    If everyone is hitting it 10 yards further, then no one is playing the course as it was designed to be played.
    It's not providing the same, originally designed challenge to anyone anymore.



    Sure, look at most doglegs on a parkland course built before 1980.

    1st & 7th in Milltown, 18th in Castle, 5th &10th in Grange, 10th in Beechpark, 12th in Lisheen (and thats only built since 2002), 10th in Bray, 3rd in Elm Park.

    and I'm sure there are hundreds more around the country.

    The first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.

    Maybe you can explain in better by picking one of the holes in the second paragraph and illustrate how amateur golfers are no longer playing them as originally designed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    srfc d16
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭srfc d16


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    The first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.

    Maybe you can explain in better by picking one of the holes in the second paragraph and illustrate how amateur golfers are no longer playing them as originally designed?

    I'm not familiar with the holes he has listed but to me if a hole was designed with (for example) trouble at 200 yards that would have caught drives when the course was first designed but everyone goes further than that now the original design or challenge is no longer in play


  • Options
    #73
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    srfc d16 wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the holes he has listed but to me if a hole was designed with (for example) trouble at 200 yards that would have caught drives when the course was first designed but everyone goes further than that now the original design or challenge is no longer in play

    The fundamental point though is that the changes in distance for amateurs largely occurred in the early 2000s so why has it taken 20 years for this to become an issue?

    People weren't complaining that the average player was hitting it too far 5/10 years ago even though they were pretty much hitting it the same distance as they are now.

    The difference now is simply the salience of distance as a talking point. Bryson has made it a topic because he effectively said "I can attaxck any course I want because I can work my out of trouble if needed because I hit it so far".

    Distance is a non-issue in the amateur game but a hot topic in the professional game. If it needs to be addressed in the pro game that's one thing but it doesn't need to be addressed for amateurs.


  • Options
    #74
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    srfc d16 wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the holes he has listed but to me if a hole was designed with (for example) trouble at 200 yards that would have caught drives when the course was first designed but everyone goes further than that now the original design or challenge is no longer in play

    Ok let's take this example so.

    Fairway bunker at 200 yards means roughly a 210 yard carry is required. These type of bunkers are in play as a risk reward. Do you lay up short of it or try carry it and end up in the hazard.

    The average driving distance for Male hcap golfers is 219 yards mean that this hole plays exactly like it 'should' for the average golfer.

    If we want to go even further into things then the increase in distance has actually means more golfers are playing this type of hole as it 'should' be played


  • Options
    #75
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    but even your graph showed this happened pre 2000 so how have all the courses survived until now why change it now

    Well courses havent survived, look around they are closing.
    Course maintenance is their biggest outgoing, so the more course you have the more it costs to maintain it.

    Why change it now? Because its getting worse and worse as people hit it further and further.


  • Options
    #76
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    The first paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.

    Maybe you can explain in better by picking one of the holes in the second paragraph and illustrate how amateur golfers are no longer playing them as originally designed?

    I don't know how to explain it any better to be honest, the courses were designed in an era when the long guys maybe hit it 220 yards occasionally, with a few outliers going 250. Now you have guys of 15 who are doing that with rescues, so their driver can just go straight over the trouble without a second thought.

    There is a reason why more people are hitting driver more often and its not just that they are easier to hit, previously they would lay up short of the trouble because only their downwind, sunday best drives would carry, now even their average drives carry.

    The examples I listed are all dogleg holes where the line off the tee is now often straight over the corner without a second thought.


  • Options
    #77
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Ok let's take this example so.

    Fairway bunker at 200 yards means roughly a 210 yard carry is required. These type of bunkers are in play as a risk reward. Do you lay up short of it or try carry it and end up in the hazard.

    The average driving distance for Male hcap golfers is 219 yards mean that this hole plays exactly like it 'should' for the average golfer.

    I think you are applying averages when your point needs medians.

    There is no "average golfer", I doubt it's even a standard distribution around the average distance.

    If this mythical bunker was placed at 200 yards when the course was built, probably 50 years ago the "going for it" was the choice of a very few players, but now its the choice of many and many more don't even see the bunker as they are landing the ball 50 yards+ beyond it.
    redzerdrog wrote: »
    If we want to go even further into things then the increase in distance has actually means more golfers are playing this type of hole as it 'should' be played

    Now this makes no sense, for every player you have brought into the risk/reward category, you have bumped someone else out of it, these 10 yards weren't just added to the average golfer, we know from the physics of the game that its not a linear progression, the guy swinging at 100mph hits it more than twice as far as the guy swinging 50mph, so the "average golfer" makes even less sense IMO.

    Even the graph of distance versus handicap isnt that clear, perhaps some comparison of the median age for each handicap would also help, since age and distance seem to correlate quite closely (or rather a loss of distance with a gain in age)
    Maybe the increase distance has meant that the median age of golfers in each category has increased because its now possible for a 50 year old to hit it as far as they did when they were 30? That would totally skew the conclusions from a simple handicap <-> distance chart.


  • Options
    #78
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I don't know how to explain it any better to be honest, the courses were designed in an era when the long guys maybe hit it 220 yards occasionally, with a few outliers going 250. Now you have guys of 15 who are doing that with rescues, so their driver can just go straight over the trouble without a second thought.

    There is a reason why more people are hitting driver more often and its not just that they are easier to hit, previously they would lay up short of the trouble because only their downwind, sunday best drives would carry, now even their average drives carry.

    The examples I listed are all dogleg holes where the line off the tee is now often straight over the corner without a second thought.

    Golf isnt just about these long guys for every one of these there is plenty who cant carry the dog leg. Also there is still risk reward in place for the guys who can they dont just get handed a par. Why should there skill not be rewarded? At the end of the day it is all balanced out by the hcap system.

    For every hole you have mentioned (not familiar with them) there is the opposite on places like headfort new or concra wood where you have to drive 140 or so yards over water. What happens these holes when they can't move the tees forward and the shortest hitters can't carry it due to rollback?


  • Options
    #79
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »

    If this mythical bunker was placed at 200 yards when the course was built, probably 50 years ago the "going for it" was the choice of a very few players, but now its the choice of many and many more don't even see the bunker as they are landing the ball 50 yards+ beyond it.

    Great so the extra distance has been a good thing and rather than very few players being able to play it as it should be we now have many many more.

    Probably why golf is much much more popular now too


  • Options
    #80
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Well courses havent survived, look around they are closing.
    Course maintenance is their biggest outgoing, so the more course you have the more it costs to maintain it.

    Why change it now? Because its getting worse and worse as people hit it further and further.

    But it's not, the graph you posted shows it

    What clubs are closing because of longer hitting


  • Options
    #81
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I don't know how to explain it any better to be honest, the courses were designed in an era when the long guys maybe hit it 220 yards occasionally, with a few outliers going 250. Now you have guys of 15 who are doing that with rescues, so their driver can just go straight over the trouble without a second thought.

    There is a reason why more people are hitting driver more often and its not just that they are easier to hit, previously they would lay up short of the trouble because only their downwind, sunday best drives would carry, now even their average drives carry.

    The examples I listed are all dogleg holes where the line off the tee is now often straight over the corner without a second thought.

    So you mean in the 1930s or the 1950s is it?

    Somehow it's been ok for the last say 30 years, but now it's a problem


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Jimbee
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭Jimbee


    I don't even know what side of the argument I'm on, I can get the ball out there myself probably 280, 300+ without much extra effort. Equipment has definitely made it easier for me. Tour pros are on another level testing week in week out on trackman, cherry picking drivers on the CT limit to gain an edge. Sure there great players otherwise but they don't get to showcase it. Bryson works with long drive guys on YouTube do we want to see them take over the pga tour, I don't think so. I want to see golf personally and as a golfer I don't want to quit golf when I can't hit it far enough to keep up, it turns the game into a negative. I want to see alternative ways to compete better short game, better putting and better iron play.


  • Options
    #83
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    Jimbee wrote: »
    I don't even know what side of the argument I'm on, I can get the ball out there myself probably 280, 300+ without much extra effort. Equipment has definitely made it easier for me. Tour pros are on another level testing week in week out on trackman, cherry picking drivers on the CT limit to gain an edge. Sure there great players otherwise but they don't get to showcase it. Bryson works with long drive guys on YouTube do we want to see them take over the pga tour, I don't think so. I want to see golf personally and as a golfer I don't want to quit golf when I can't hit it far enough to keep up, it turns the game into a negative. I want to see alternative ways to compete better short game, better putting and better iron play.

    Can you put better than wee Rory though?


  • Options
    #84
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    But it's not, the graph you posted shows it

    What clubs are closing because of longer hitting

    The graph shows handicap ranges are hitting it further, they don't give the details of who makes up these handicap ranges.
    I strongly suspect individuals are hitting it further now then they could with the equipment of 20 years ago.
    I know it's true for me and I know it's true for everyone I play with, maybe I'm in some magical golf vacuum...

    I didn't say clubs are closing because of longer hitting, they are closing because of costs. If you know how to make a course longer without adding more maintenance costs I'm sure the industry are all ears!


  • Options
    #85
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    So you mean in the 1930s or the 1950s is it?

    Somehow it's been ok for the last say 30 years, but now it's a problem

    But it hasn't been ok, the game has been getting longer and longer over that period.

    Would you have an issue with another 10 yards over the next 10 years? How about 20, 40?

    At what point is it an issue for you, and whatv exactly is your issue with rules to limit distances?
    I haven't really heard an argument against it other than "I don't like it"...


  • Options
    #86
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Great so the extra distance has been a good thing and rather than very few players being able to play it as it should be we now have many many more.

    Probably why golf is much much more popular now too

    I thought I had explained it, but I'll try again.
    For every 10 players who now get to play it as a risk reward hole, there are 10 that no longer have any risk as they are easily carrying the hazard.
    That's not more prior playing it at it was designed...

    I don't think you can honestly say that "very few players playing it as it was designed", it was designed in a time when only the long guys could go for it, so by design only a few went for it.. Only the long guys... Now the average guys are going for it.


  • Options
    #87
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But it hasn't been ok, the game has been getting longer and longer over that period.

    Would you have an issue with another 10 yards over the next 10 years? How about 20, 40?

    At what point is it an issue for you, and whatv exactly is your issue with rules to limit distances?
    I haven't really heard an argument against it other than "I don't like it"...

    But it hasn't as the graph shows

    Not much else to be said about that

    Because it's unnecessary, they already put in place limits and they have worked


  • Options
    #88
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I thought I had explained it, but I'll try again.
    For every 10 players who now get to play it as a risk reward hole, there are 10 that no longer have any risk as they are easily carrying the hazard.
    That's not more prior playing it at it was designed...

    I don't think you can honestly say that "very few players playing it as it was designed", it was designed in a time when only the long guys could go for it, so by design only a few went for it.. Only the long guys... Now the average guys are going for it.

    They are, they didn't design it so you couldn't go over it, they designed it so if you can off you go

    I mean it's still working as designed

    For someone who can get it out to 230, you have to hit that shot well or you lose a ball


  • Options
    #89
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,407 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    The graph shows handicap ranges are hitting it further, they don't give the details of who makes up these handicap ranges.
    I strongly suspect individuals are hitting it further now then they could with the equipment of 20 years ago.
    I know it's true for me and I know it's true for everyone I play with, maybe I'm in some magical golf vacuum...

    I didn't say clubs are closing because of longer hitting, they are closing because of costs. If you know how to make a course longer without adding more maintenance costs I'm sure the industry are all ears!

    You cant post a graph to try and make a point and then ignore the graph

    Again, golf has survived for the last 20 years, no problems


  • Options
    #90
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I thought I had explained it, but I'll try again.
    For every 10 players who now get to play it as a risk reward hole, there are 10 that no longer have any risk as they are easily carrying the hazard.
    That's not more prior playing it at it was designed...

    I don't think you can honestly say that "very few players playing it as it was designed", it was designed in a time when only the long guys could go for it, so by design only a few went for it.. Only the long guys... Now the average guys are going for it.

    No you now have 20 players playing it as a risk reward, just because someone has the ability to clear it easy they still need to hit a good shot. Why should they get punished for having this ability?

    It like some type of small man syndrome tbh

    There is already limits on the technology in both the ball and equipment and the graph you posted prove that these are working. Further gains are due to people getting stronger, more powerful and better understanding of launch conditions ect.

    Your argument of playing courses as they were meant to is completely nonsensical. Basically if I am a 20+ hcapper and hit the ball 160 yards of the tee then from working on my game I gain an extra 10 yards I am no longer playing the course as designed. Nonsense of the highest order


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    They are, they didn't design it so you couldn't go over it, they designed it so if you can off you go

    I mean it's still working as designed

    For someone who can get it out to 230, you have to hit that shot well or you lose a ball

    How much does a course need to increase in length in order to compensate for the additional 15 or so yards in increased distance?

    Also course maintenance costs have far exceeded inflation since long before the graphs shared up until the present day.

    I suspect the additional costs incurred due to course adjustment since the mid 90s is small to negligible relative to overall maintenance costs throughout that period.


Advertisement