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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Distance Regulation

13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Surely then we wouldn't be playing courses as they were designed to be played

    Lol, you mean the courses that have been lengthened since they were designed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Hitting the ball further is more fun and more appealing than hitting it shorter.

    If courses were made shorter and players hit the ball a shorter distance even if in relative terms nothing changed, that would be very unappealing to the majority of people.
    That seems a very obvious reason to me and clearly that is pretty bad for the appeal of golf.

    What's "shorter" mean though?
    Did people think Jack or Arnie were short? In 5 years everyone will have moved on... You act some lack of distance was holding the game back in the 90s.

    It might be unappealing for a few people, but the future players would be oblivious and would enjoy cheaper, faster golf with less damage to the environment.

    Your argument is analogous to the gas guzzlers of the 70s in the US, no one will want a car that's not a V8 right?
    Wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Lol, you mean the courses that have been lengthened since they were designed?

    What about the courses that weren't built a hundred year ago? Do we not care about them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    What's "shorter" mean though?
    Did people think Jack or Arnie were short? In 5 years everyone will have moved on... You act some lack of distance was holding the game back in the 90s.

    It might be unappealing for a few people, but the future players would be oblivious and would enjoy cheaper, faster golf with less damage to the environment.

    Your argument is analogous to the gas guzzlers of the 70s in the US, no one will want a car that's not a V8 right?
    Wrong.

    The argument isn't about Arnie or Jack it's about the 99.9% of golfers who are amateurs and play for fun. Distance has always been a massive part of the game and the same conversations where being had 30 years ago. Yep here we are 30 years later and golf is more popular now than it ever was. There wasnt a lack of distance in the 90s there was still golfers hitting 300 yards drives back then


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    Shorter means shorter, as in they will hit it shorter than they currently hit it which is unappealing.

    People are anchored to a specific number, I hit the ball X distance, if you reduce the distance one can hit the ball it is less appealing because it’s one of the most enjoyable elements of the game. You’re rolling the game back from a more advanced position.

    Your analogy is beyond flawed because the difference is that the experience of an electric car doesn’t fundamentally differ from the experience you had in a gas guzzler. You will reach your destination in a similar manner and for a similar price whereas with a change like you suggest, you reduce the leisure time and you alter one of the most appealing elements of the game.

    Rolling back the distance people can hit the ball has never been done so this reference of “Jack & Arnie being shorter” is largely moot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    What about the courses that weren't built a hundred year ago? Do we not care about them?

    You mean the minority?
    We could go crazy and move the tees forward if needed?
    Yunno, the opposite of what all the other courses have been doing for the last 30 years!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    The argument isn't about Arnie or Jack it's about the 99.9% of golfers who are amateurs and play for fun. Distance has always been a massive part of the game and the same conversations where being had 30 years ago. Yep here we are 30 years later and golf is more popular now than it ever was. There wasnt a lack of distance in the 90s there was still golfers hitting 300 yards drives back then

    I didn't say it was about Jack or Arnie, you really are missing the point in your haste for outrage.

    If you think golf is suddenly popular because people got the ball further... Then didn't that slightly contradict your opinion that people aren't hitting it further!
    Which is it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    You mean the minority?
    We could go crazy and move the tees forward if needed?
    Yunno, the opposite of what all the other courses have been doing for the last 30 years!

    But they they wouldn't be played as the architect intended?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I didn't say it was about Jack or Arnie, you really are missing the point in your haste for outrage.

    If you think golf is suddenly popular because people got the ball further... Then didn't that slightly contradict your opinion that people aren't hitting it further!
    Which is it?

    Where did I say either of those things?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Shorter means shorter, as in they will hit it shorter than they currently hit it which is unappealing.

    People are anchored to a specific number, I hit the ball X distance, if you reduce the distance one can hit the ball it is less appealing because it’s one of the most enjoyable elements of the game. You’re rolling the game back from a more advanced position.

    Your analogy is beyond flawed because the difference is that the experience of an electric car doesn’t fundamentally differ from the experience you had in a gas guzzler. You will reach your destination in a similar manner and for a similar price whereas with a change like you suggest, you reduce the leisure time and you alter one of the most appealing elements of the game.

    Rolling back the distance people can hit the ball has never been done so this reference of “Jack & Arnie being shorter” is largely moot.
    I think you'll find my analogy didn't mention electric cars at all!

    As for faster rounds due to shorter courses "reducing leisure time".. Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on, it has never taken as long to play the game as it does today, that's not an appealing aspect of today's game, go read any survey if you disagree.

    Btw more distance due to technology is only more advanced in your opinion, it's not a fact that distance =advancement.

    Also aren't you constantly telling me that people aren't hitting it meaningfully further distances than before?
    Which is it?


    COR was rolled back and also the size of the ball was increased/standardized on the American size.

    Both changes that significantly negatively impacted distances... And look at us now... Area you still up in arms that your driver's cor is less than it was it that you can't use your old small English ball?

    I suspect those that have an issue with distance being rolled back are comparatively new to the game and just don't or can't appreciate the impact it has had on the playing of regular golf courses.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    But they they wouldn't be played as the architect intended?

    Again your argument contradicts itself.
    Courses are not designed by specific numbers, they are designed by how far the ball travels.

    The hazard isn't at 230 because that's a nice number, it's there because that's where the balls land.
    You dial the ball back 20 yards and push the tee up 20 yards and you are back where you started.

    In any case, since you are arguing for playing the course as designed, there are far more old courses being extended than new courses that would be reduced.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Again your argument contradicts itself.
    Courses are not designed by specific numbers, they are designed by how far the ball travels.

    The hazard isn't at 230 because that's a nice number, it's there because that's where the balls land.
    You dial the ball back 20 yards and push the tee up 20 yards and you are back where you started.

    In any case, since you are arguing for playing the course as designed, there are far more old courses being extended than new courses that would be reduced.

    It's not my arguement it is yours yet you are the one constantly contradicting yourself. You want the ball rolled back to keep the integrity of the game so that courses are played as there were originally designed. But its only the old courses that count the new ones can go sod themselves.

    Plenty of holes on courses with water carries were it's not possible to move the tee forward. But feck them because there weren't built 100years ago they dont matter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    Whether you were referring to Electric or other is largely irrelevant, remove electric and insert car of choice since the 70s and my position holds.

    Anywho, not really sure what the bells on piece is about but to address your point, I assume those surveys don’t include shorter rounds at the expense of reduced distance so again that’s effectively moot.
    If you share a survey where it’s framed like that, I’m open to correction.

    I never said distance was advancement but in order to rein in distance, the tech whether that is balls or clubs would have to be altered.
    I don’t think distance has changed that much since the 90s a bit since graphite was standard, your graph showed that but its your position that it has changed significantly despite what the data suggests.
    In order to reduce it though, the change would need to occur via changes in equipment even though equipment hasn’t been the key driver of the increase ie rolling back very very far.

    I’m not up in arms over anything tbh. I’ll be leaving it there as this is clearly moving away from a friendly discussion on golf when you’re getting into who played for how long and what they can and cannot appreciate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Whether you were referring to Electric or other is largely irrelevant, remove electric and insert car of choice since the 70s and my position holds.

    Anywho, not really sure what the bells on piece is about but to address your point, I assume those surveys don’t include shorter rounds at the expense of reduced distance so again that’s effectively moot.
    If you share a survey where it’s framed like that, I’m open to correction.

    I never said distance was advancement but in order to rein in distance, the tech whether that is balls or clubs would have to be altered.

    I don’t think distance has changed that much since the 90s a bit since graphite was standard, your graph showed that but its your position that it has changed significantly despite what the data suggests.
    In order to reduce it though, the change would need to occur via changes in equipment even though equipment hasn’t been the key driver of the increase ie rolling back very very far.

    I’m not up in arms over anything tbh. I’ll be leaving it there as this is clearly moving away from a friendly discussion on golf when you’re getting into who played for how long and what they can and cannot appreciate.

    You said this " You’re rolling the game back from a more advanced position" and the thing I'm rolling back is distance... So what advancement were you talking about that wasn't related to distance?

    Do you accept that the graph shows an upward trend but also that a graph based on handicaps won't show if individuals are hitting it further than before or not?

    If equipment hasn't been the key driver, what has? Also what has in limiting equipment?

    It's 100% a discussion, I wasn't being derogatory with that last comment so apologies if you took it that way, but I think it's an accurate and valid point. If someone has only taken the game up in the last 10 years then par 4s being a drive and a wedge are the norm other than occasional courses like druids heath where it can be a slog of driver and then 4i off even the forward tees, but this is far closer to what many of us grew up playing. Bomb and gouge is comparatively very new to the game and not how it was designed to be played for most of its existence, nevermind the cost and environmental implications of same.
    When you can get the same playability other than changing the number one a boat of other benefits i honestly can't see the downside, it would open up hundreds of courses as much more enjoyable to play.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    I guess if we are saying that distance is the biggest factor in scoring then the below chart without have to indicate that people are, on average hitting it further?
    The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

    1573310272695.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    More flip flopping from yourself you could at least remain consistent
    GreeBo wrote: »
    If you are long enough & accurate enough, then improving either will make you a better golfer.

    The real argument is, assuming you are currently accurate enough and long enough, will improving your accuracy by 10% or your distance by 10% improve your scores more.

    Given that neither will improve your scores by 10% and there are certainly diminishing returns for distance, but not for accuracy I think its a pretty tough argument to win decisively either way.

    All the stats are biased by being both professionals and also by there being so many variables (the player, the course, the greens etc etc)

    If you did it with a robot then accuracy would certainly win over distance IMO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,763 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I guess if we are saying that distance is the biggest factor in scoring then the below chart without have to indicate that people are, on average hitting it further?
    The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

    1573310272695.png

    Ok let me get this right you are happy to take averages as an example here but not happy to accept averages when they dont suit your agenda.

    Also what exactly is wrong with the avarage hcap reducing? What's the problem? People enjoy the game more the accomplished they become at it. So surely this I a good thing and the game will continue to grow.

    Again the biggest leap were before the current limitations on ball and clubs that have been working very well


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭dan_ep82


    GreeBo wrote: »
    The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.


    Going by the graph you posted it looks more like it plateaued aroung 2009, so stayed within a shot for the last decade. Also I read somewhere the average in Ireland is around 16, could have been the R&A spokeswoman who said it but I'll see if I can dig up some facts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    More flip flopping from yourself you could at least remain consistent

    Sorry, but since you just ignore every point I make and question I ask you, including a very detailed post that annihilated your MacKenzie post, coupled with your posts being quite rude and aggressive I'm no longer going to waste my time replying to you on this topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    dan_ep82 wrote: »
    Going by the graph you posted it looks more like it plateaued aroung 2009, so stayed within a shot for the last decade. Also I read somewhere the average in Ireland is around 16, could have been the R&A spokeswoman who said it but I'll see if I can dig up some facts.

    I don't think you can say it plateaued if it's now 0.8 shots lower, considering it started on 16.3 and is now 13.7, that 1.3 is pretty significant?


    The theory used to be that the average hasn't changed in years (from 18) but seems that's a myth.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    dan_ep82 wrote: »
    Going by the graph you posted it looks more like it plateaued aroung 2009, so stayed within a shot for the last decade. Also I read somewhere the average in Ireland is around 16, could have been the R&A spokeswoman who said it but I'll see if I can dig up some facts.

    I read/heard something similar, we'll probably get a clearer pic of Ireland vs US/ROW as a bigger dataset is collected under the new handicap system.

    Needless to say, assuming marginal changes in handicap is due to marginal changes in distance is quite presumptive.

    Age old error of correlation equaling causation.

    The data insights report shared explicitly stated 27% of changes in distance over the past 20 years can be attributed to frequency of use.

    That leaves 73% ie an approximate 5% unexplained increase in distance over the past 2 decades.

    Perhaps the impact of coaching, frequency of play, improved fitness are all possible contributors so plenty of reasons beyond technology.
    That's without even mentioning the fact that most feel the marginal gains in distance have largely stagnated and arent an issue especially at the amateur level.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭dan_ep82


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I don't think you can say it plateaued if it's now 1.3 shots lower, considering it started on 16.3 and is now 14.2, that 1.3 is pretty significant?


    The theory used to be that the average hasn't changed in years (from 18) but seems that's a myth.


    Your missing the part where I said from 2009 :confused: It's moved .3 in 12 years (09'-21'). It moved from 16.3 to 14.5 in the previous 12 years (96'-09'), or 1.8 shots.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I guess if we are saying that distance is the biggest factor in scoring then the below chart without have to indicate that people are, on average hitting it further?
    The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

    1573310272695.png

    More charts

    as distance hasn't gone up in the last 20 years then the two charts aren't related

    Sure haven't all those courses added acres of grass that needs to be cut to accom the long hitters, why hasn't his offset the handicap stats

    All that cut grass has caused them all to go out of business

    Can you graph distance increases versus the increase in maint costs versus the increase in total length of courses versus course closures versus handicap changes over the last 50 years

    Now that would be a chart

    That would keep ya busy anyway


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45 Jimbee


    redzerdrog wrote: »
    Just listening to a podcast on this at the moment. Hack it out with crossfield, Scott Fawcett from Decade and Lou stagner.

    Good discussion on it and they put forward my views far better than I can.

    I went to follow Lou stagner on Twitter and found this cracker from the most famous course architect of all time

    "In an ideal long hole, there should not only be a big advantage from successfully negotiating a long carry for the tee shot, but the longer the drive, the greater the advantage should be."

    - Alister MacKenzie

    The issue now is a senior golfer can take on the long carry, fairway bunkers are out of play for most plus golf clubs are so forgiving it's hard to hit a bad shot.
    Watching the phoinex open take away the drive it is a game of pitch and putt.
    The guys don't get to showcase there repertoire to be fair it's not very exciting, when you compare it to Seves great escapes. They could do more with a ball! Skillful it's called. Jorden Spieth has a cat swing and it in contention as well as Steve Stricker at 54 I mean reality check needed badly!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    dan_ep82 wrote: »
    Your missing the part where I said from 2009 :confused: It's moved .3 in 12 years (09'-21'). It moved from 16.3 to 14.5 in the previous 12 years (96'-09'), or 1.8 shots.

    But it hasn't only moved .3, the average is now 13.7 , so has come down .8 shots since 2009 (that graph stops in 2016!)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo



    Needless to say, assuming marginal changes in handicap is due to marginal changes in distance is quite presumptive.
    "Marginal changes"?
    Really?
    Age old error of correlation equaling causation.
    Nope, I'm just showing the stats, you were one of the posters who said that increase in distance leads to lower scores...
    That's without even mentioning the fact that most feel the marginal gains in distance have largely stagnated and arent an issue especially at the amateur level.

    Despite the fact that the slope of the trend line of the average distance/handicap is only going in one direction, albeit that you keep disputing this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    More charts

    as distance hasn't gone up in the last 20 years then the two charts aren't related

    Sure haven't all those courses added acres of grass that needs to be cut to accom the long hitters, why hasn't his offset the handicap stats

    All that cut grass has caused them all to go out of business

    Can you graph distance increases versus the increase in maint costs versus the increase in total length of courses versus course closures versus handicap changes over the last 50 years

    Now that would be a chart

    That would keep ya busy anyway

    A lot of words there but nothing that disputes any of the facts I have posted, again, I won't bother engaging if you are not actually trying to have a meaningful or sensible discussion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    GreeBo wrote: »
    "Marginal changes"?
    Really?


    Nope, I'm just showing the stats, you were one of the posters who said that increase in distance leads to lower scores...



    Despite the fact that the slope of the trend line of the average distance/handicap is only going in one direction, albeit that you keep disputing this.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    from the Distance Insight report

    542070.JPG
    GreeBo wrote: »

    1573310272695.png


    Yes, marginal. You're drawing some awful false equivalences.

    Clearly if you know enough to share these graphs, you must understand that graphs which sit on different x-axis will skew data. That is data visualization 101.

    You share one graph which begins in 1996 to represent distance and then share a graph which begins in 1991 to graph handicaps.
    Please just any type of consistency would be welcomed.

    Furthermore, I acknowledged multiple times now that a significant change happened due to graphite around 2000.

    I've consistently said marginal in the past 20 years.
    Please read what I said.

    Again on the graph for handicap, handicaps have reduced from approx 15.6 to 14.4 since 2000 which is 7% reduction, that is marginal just like the change in distance.

    So yes, to answer your question, it's marginal and as I also said correlation does not equal causation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    I see now that there is more whataboutery wrapped up here where the final data point in the graphs is also different so according to the combination of 2 different data sources :rolleyes: the handicap change is closer to 12% over that 20 year period.

    Just to say I still think a 12% change over 20 years is pretty marginal. Also, worth reiterating further that correlation does not equal causation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    I see now that there is more whataboutery wrapped up here where the final data point in the graphs is also different so according to the combination of 2 different data sources the handicap change is closer to 12% over that 20 year period.

    Just to say I still think a 12% change over 20 years is pretty marginal. Also, worth reiterating further that correlation does not equal causation.
    "whataboutery"?
    Are you denying that the current male average handicap is what I am saying it is?

    Yes, marginal. You're drawing some awful false equivalences.
    I'm not drawing any equivalence, I'm posting the available facts. If you have other facts, please share them!
    Clearly if you know enough to share these graphs, you must understand that graphs which sit on different x-axis will skew data. That is data visualization 101.

    You share one graph which begins in 1996 to represent distance and then share a graph which begins in 1991 to graph handicaps.
    Please just any type of consistency would be welcomed.
    Both are graphs over time showing an increase in average distance and a decrease in average handicap.
    Are you seriously saying that you are going to disregard the details because I havent reformatted into a single graph? Thats seriously your argument, on a message forum?
    I've consistently said marginal in the past 20 years.
    Please read what I said.

    Again on the graph for handicap, handicaps have reduced from approx 15.6 to 14.4 since 2000 which is 7% reduction, that is marginal just like the change in distance.

    So yes, to answer your question, it's marginal and as I also said correlation does not equal causation.

    Ah come on, who looks at percentages when it comes to golf handicaps?
    A 1 shot drop on average for every male golfer in the US is huge. You really can't deny that.

    And for the last time, I have not equated correlation & causation, (you did that with distance and handicaps in the other thread!) I'm posting two facts, distances have increase and over the same time period handicaps have dropped. Perhaps you could argue the other things that explain it, other than distance?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    GreeBo wrote: »
    "whataboutery"?
    Are you denying that the current male average handicap is what I am saying it is?

    I'm questioning consistency of sources and how your drawing false equivalences.
    If you're attempting to make a care, be consistent.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I'm not drawing any equivalence, I'm posting the available facts. If you have other facts, please share them!

    Yes and I'm questioning your conclusions. You're making large leaps with little proof. I acknowledge changes have occurred and I've given potential other contributors beyond distance.
    Again please try and read what I said. You haven't shown anything which PROVES that distance reduces handicaps.

    That's your point, you've just shown two graphs which trend in a suggestive manner. That's not proof.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Both are graphs over time showing an increase in average distance and a decrease in average handicap.
    Are you seriously saying that you are going to disregard the details because I havent reformatted into a single graph? Thats seriously your argument, on a message forum?
    No I'm just highlighting another flaw in an already very poor argument.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    "
    Ah come on, who looks at percentages when it comes to golf handicaps?
    A 1 shot drop on average for every male golfer in the US is huge. You really can't deny that.
    So you think a 1 shot drop is more representative than a rate?
    Clearly someone dropping from 5 to 4 is different to dropping from 13 to 12, using rates helps to normalise. Showing it in this manner is clearly more advantageous, incredible that you could even suggest otherwise.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    And for the last time, I have not equated correlation & causation, (you did that with distance and handicaps in the other thread!) I'm posting two facts, distances have increase and over the same time period handicaps have dropped. Perhaps you could argue the other things that explain it, other than distance?
    No I didnt, please share where I said that?

    Again I've given a variety of reasons why this might have occurred.
    Please read what I wrote, you have proved nothing with what you have shared.

    You've used graphs which are suggestive but not proof.

    I have presented one piece of proof from your source which explicitly stated 27% of the increase in distance is due to frequency of use.

    That is proof, you have given nothing as concrete as that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭dan_ep82


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But it hasn't only moved .3, the average is now 13.7 , so has come down .8 shots since 2009 (that graph stops in 2016!)

    I'm aware it stops in 2016, however the current average male HC in the states ( where you data is from) is 14.2

    https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicapping-stats.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    dan_ep82 wrote: »
    I'm aware it stops in 2016, however the current average male HC in the states ( where you data is from) is 14.2

    https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicapping-stats.html
    I see now that there is more whataboutery wrapped up here where the final data point in the graphs is also different so according to the combination of 2 different data sources :rolleyes: the handicap change is closer to 12% over that 20 year period.

    Just to say I still think a 12% change over 20 years is pretty marginal. Also, worth reiterating further that correlation does not equal causation.

    So it was two different data sources and it was a false equivalence.

    So basically where we're really at over the period I suggested is somewhere in between around a 8.9% reduction in handicaps over a 20 year period and no closer to learning if that is due to increased distance.

    As I said, if you're going to make an argument, at least be consistent in your sources.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    dan_ep82 wrote: »
    I'm aware it stops in 2016, however the current average male HC in the states ( where you data is from) is 14.2

    https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicapping-stats.html

    This is the most up to date number I can find (from Feb this year), but its potentially the median.
    https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2021/02/01/what-is-the-average-usga-handicap-index-for-golfers-121868/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    A lot of words there but nothing that disputes any of the facts I have posted, again, I won't bother engaging if you are not actually trying to have a meaningful or sensible discussion.


    they are all sensible and make a mockery of your arguments



    the distance graph you posted shows that distances haven't gone up up in the last 20 years


    you can't ignore this one graph and then not ignore the others


    you make no sense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    I'm questioning consistency of sources and how your drawing false equivalences.
    If you're attempting to make a care, be consistent.
    I cant provide consistent sources if the source doesnt provide both graphs.
    However, the handicap vs distance is from the USGA Distance Insight reports and the handicap trend is also based on USGA handicap, I'm not sure what else you are expecting? Are you expecting me to commission a report?

    Yes and I'm questioning your conclusions. You're making large leaps with little proof. I acknowledge changes have occurred and I've given potential other contributors beyond distance.
    But I'm not drawing any conclusions, this thread is about distance regulation, I merely posted some stats that show handicaps dropping, on the back of the other thread where many posters were linking distance and scoring I thought it was relevant to bring it up.
    Again please try and read what I said. You haven't shown anything which PROVES that distance reduces handicaps.
    Apologies, I was confusing you with ShivasIrons.
    That's your point, you've just shown two graphs which trend in a suggestive manner. That's not proof.
    Erm, I'm not trying to provide scientific proof, this is a golf discussion forum?
    So you think a 1 shot drop is more representative than a rate?
    Clearly someone dropping from 5 to 4 is different to dropping from 13 to 12, using rates helps to normalise. Showing it in this manner is clearly more advantageous, incredible that you could even suggest otherwise.
    I think think you can normalise though, since, as you say 1 shot isn't the same, but I think rates suffer from the
    issue, going from 10-9 is still harder (IMO) than going from 36 to 32.
    Again I've given a variety of reasons why this might have occurred.
    Please read what I wrote, you have proved nothing with what you have shared.
    Equally you havent shown anything that would prove (or even indicate) that more people are taking more coaching or playing more golf than the did before. So not only have you not proved any causation, you havent even provided any evidence of its existence!
    You've used graphs which are suggestive but not proof.
    Which is all I'm trying to do, provoke a discussion, this isnt CERN!
    I have presented one piece of proof from your source which explicitly stated 27% of the increase in distance is due to frequency of use.

    That is proof, you have given nothing as concrete as that.

    Thats from the report that I provided but in any case, there is still the other 73% to explain?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    the distance graph you posted shows that distances haven't gone up up in the last 20 years

    The higher the handicap the further the ball is going than ever before, do you disagree with this?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    GreeBo wrote: »
    I cant provide consistent sources if the source doesnt provide both graphs.
    However, the handicap vs distance is from the USGA Distance Insight reports and the handicap trend is also based on USGA handicap, I'm not sure what else you are expecting? Are you expecting me to commission a report?
    You were the one who introduced these graphs as validation for your position.
    Visuals generally make a compelling case which is why you used them. You should be accepting and prepared for push back when they’re flawed.

    GreeBo wrote: »
    But I'm not drawing any conclusions, this thread is about distance regulation, I merely posted some stats that show handicaps dropping, on the back of the other thread where many posters were linking distance and scoring I thought it was relevant to bring it up.
    That's fine but you should be able to make your case on it's merits without dragging up a previous discussion. That just undermines your argument now.

    That is even more true when the people you are discussing it with you now didn't say what you think they did.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Apologies, I was confusing you with ShivasIrons.
    That's the 2nd apology you've given me for misrepresenting me. As I've said numerous times now, you should read what I have written and not respond to what you think I have written.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    I think think you can normalise though, since, as you say 1 shot isn't the same, but I think rates suffer from the
    issue, going from 10-9 is still harder (IMO) than going from 36 to 32.
    They do suffer, I'm not suggesting they don't but clearly they are better than your "1 shot" argument.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Equally you havent shown anything that would prove (or even indicate) that more people are taking more coaching or playing more golf than the did before. So not only have you not proved any causation, you havent even provided any evidence of its existence!
    I haven't attempted to make a case for one single thing, you have.

    I shared one thing which was news to me. The one thing I said ie frequency of use has increased distance is in fact shown in explicit. You haven't come close to showing anything as concrete.

    I have offered various alternatives as a counter to you because it involves a myriad of things. You're clearly hanging your hat one but failing to deliver a good argument.
    I'm totally open to someone showing me that the alternatives I suggested are wrong but that's not what your argument has done. It's simply very unconvincing.
    GreeBo wrote: »
    Thats from the report that I provided but in any case, there is still the other 73% to explain?

    Yes I've said that too and what you have shared thus far doesn't make a compelling case for where that 73% has come from and more importantly why it might change moving forward.
    It's clearly plateaued in the past 20 years so why is it only an issue now.

    It's not an issue, as I said early on it's topical because of the salience of distance at the pro level.

    Most feel it is largely irrelevant at the amateur level for a long time now and you haven't shared why it is an issue nor why it might become an issue moving forward.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    The higher the handicap the further the ball is going than ever before, do you disagree with this?




    the graph show it was higher mid 2000s than now


    so no


    it hasn't gone any further in the last 20 years since they introduced the measures to stop the ball going further


    do you agree with that


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    You were the one who introduced these graphs as validation for your position.
    Visuals generally make a compelling case which is why you used them. You should be accepting and prepared for push back when they’re flawed.
    My position (in this thread) is that the ball is travelling further than before and that it is detrimental to the game.
    For me, the graphs clearly support that, however I would much rather have other graphs (such as distance or handicap by age over time) but since these are not available I have shared the only graphs that I can find that are relevant to the discussion. Again, this is a discussion forum, I think perhaps you forget that sometimes?
    That's fine but you should be able to make your case on it's merits without dragging up a previous discussion. That just undermines your argument now.
    Again, my argument is that the ball is going further than it did, further than it needs to and that this is negatively impacting the game. It would appear that the governing bodies of the game agree, so its not like I'm hanging on out a limb here.
    Oh I think "dragging up a previous discussion" is a bit disingenuous when that other discussion is the one that prompted this very thread?

    That's the 2nd apology you've given me for misrepresenting me. As I've said numerous times now, you should read what I have written and not respond to what you think I have written.
    Would you like me to apologise again? Perhaps post some self flagellation? I'm really not sure what response you are looking for here...

    They do suffer, I'm not suggesting they don't but clearly they are better than your "1 shot" argument.
    Well I dont think it is so clear, thats my opinion for which I am entitled, despite your opinion to the contrary.

    I haven't attempted to make a case for one single thing, you have.
    So what exactly is it you are doing here then, other than nitpicking without actually adding to the discussion at all?
    Perhaps actually *try* to make a case of your own?
    I shared one thing which was news to me. The one thing I said ie frequency of use has increased distance is in fact shown in explicit. You haven't come close to showing anything as concrete.
    For the umpteenth time, I am sharing the facts that are available, based on the studies of the subject.
    I have offered various alternatives as a counter to you because it involves a myriad of things. You're clearly hanging your hat one but failing to deliver a good argument.
    You havent delivered anything that backs up your thoughts behind increased distance.
    I'm totally open to someone showing me that the alternatives I suggested are wrong but that's not what your argument has done. It's simply very unconvincing.
    Its not mine or anyones job to try to prove things that you brought up without any evidence as wrong. Perhaps if you could back them up with some supporting graphs or facts it could be discussed? Maybe try to make a compelling case for your opinions, assuming you actually believe and stand behind them?

    Yes I've said that too and what you have shared thus far doesn't make a compelling case for where that 73% has come from and more importantly why it might change moving forward.
    It's clearly plateaued in the past 20 years so why is it only an issue now.
    Well I have shown more than you have, since you have shown nothing.

    It has plateaued for some yet not for others and all that does is bring everyone closer together in distance, despite different skill levels.

    But also the fact that drivers are being used more is proof itself? Drivers go further than any other club, so the very fact that more people are hitting more drivers makes the game shorter than it ever was before.
    You keep using that fact like it diminishes my point when it actually supports it, the game is getting longer and longer.
    It's not an issue, as I said early on it's topical because of the salience of distance at the pro level.

    Most feel it is largely irrelevant at the amateur level for a long time now and you haven't shared why it is an issue nor why it might become an issue moving forward.

    "its not an issue"? You state that like its a fact, yet you have shown nothing to support it, nothing to contradict the thoughts of the two governing bodies.

    "most feel" again, some random thoughts from your head dont a survey make.
    Finally, if you bothered to read my posts, I have shared multiple reasons as to why it is and will continue to be an issue (e.g. cost, space, time, environment) if we were to contrast that to your reasons why it isn't perhaps a discussion might break out?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    the graph show it was higher mid 2000s than now


    so no


    it hasn't gone any further in the last 20 years since they introduced the measures to stop the ball going further


    do you agree with that

    trend
    /trɛnd/
    noun
    1.
    a general direction in which something is developing or changing.


    Mod Edit, I'm leaving this so all can see but the message to you is to stay on topic and not make pointless posts that could be seen as baiting/flaming.
    Please make yourself familiar with the Forum rules


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    trend
    /trɛnd/
    noun
    1.
    a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

    its not developing or changing, it is flat lining no answers?

    in 1996 it was trending upwards, then that stopped



    change



    verb



    present participle:



    changing 1. make (someone or something) different; alter or modify.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,634 Mod ✭✭✭✭slave1


    Hi folks, can we keep it back to topic please and ease up on the to and fro posts as these are derailing.
    Thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    My fundamental point throughout has been that distance is not an issue in the amateur game and is being investigated now as a potential issue because of the salience of the distance discussion in the pro game.

    I acknowledge that an uptick in distance occurred around 2000, likely due to the ubiquitous use of graphite around that time.
    Worth pointing out that contrary to what is being suggested the USGA investigating if distance is an issue is not the same as them taking action so nothing may come of this.

    Since 2000, marginal changes in handicaps & distance have occurred.
    Although I don't think distance is an issue, we know that the marginal increase was driven by increased use of the driver (27%) and a myriad of other factors-I'm sure tech was one of them.
    If we wish to return driving distance back to pre-90s levels for whatever reason, the most likely method would be via tech adjustments.

    Although tech is unlikely to have driven the remaining 73% of the increase, it would need to account for 100% of the adjustment so the change would be substantial.
    That is assuming of course that nobody is advocating for a limitation on driver use.

    Although a correlation exists between distance increasing(marginally) and handicaps decreasing(marginally), that does not mean one caused the other. I suggested a variety of different things merely as discussion points.

    I'm not suggesting they have caused handicaps to lower slightly so it's not something I need to *prove*, I just don't believe anything we have been shown thus far has proved distance increases as a key contributor of reduced handicaps.

    I'll be leaving it there but that is fundamentally my position on the topics discussed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Slave1 wrote: »
    Mod Edit, I'm leaving this so all can see but the message to you is to stay on topic and not make pointless posts that could be seen as baiting/flaming.
    Please make yourself familiar with the Forum rules

    How is my post off topic? The graphs have a trend, so I'm explaining what a trend is since the other poster thinks picking 1 data point over 25 years is meaningful in this discussion. (and in fact goes on to pick the first data point!)

    Mod Edit

    One week ban per forum charter
    "Failure to adhere to any of the "mod" related rules will result in an instant 1 week ban"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    My fundamental point throughout has been that distance is not an issue in the amateur game
    And that's a perfectly fine opinion to have and discuss.
    Worth pointing out that contrary to what is being suggested the USGA investigating if distance is an issue is not the same as them taking action so nothing may come of this.
    Most people kick off an investigation like this with the intention of taking action based on the results.
    Although tech is unlikely to have driven the remaining 73% of the increase, it would need to account for 100% of the adjustment so the change would be substantial.
    I think simply reducing the ball would take care of it all, it should be easy enough to set up a limited flight ball to whatever distance required.
    Modifying the ball would mean that players also can benefit from things like easier to hit drivers.
    That is assuming of course that nobody is advocating for a limitation on driver use.
    By this do you mean restricting the amount of times a driver could be used per round?
    Although a correlation exists between distance increasing(marginally) and handicaps decreasing(marginally), that does not mean one caused the other. I suggested a variety of different things merely as discussion points.
    Again thats fine, I raised my points also for discussion.
    I'm not suggesting they have caused handicaps to lower slightly so it's not something I need to *prove*, I just don't believe anything we have been shown thus far has proved distance increases as a key contributor of reduced handicaps.
    I'm confused now, if they didnt cause handicaps to lower, but you also dont think that distance did it....what did it?
    I'll be leaving it there but that is fundamentally my position on the topics discussed.

    I don't see any reason to stop engaging, just please discuss your opinion rather than keep nit picking at everything I post...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,451 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo



    in 1996 it was trending upwards, then that stopped

    1996 is a single and the first data point on the graph, which by definition cannot have a trend so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,659 ✭✭✭blue note


    I think some regulation to affect how far amateurs hit it would be good. The big jump in how far we hit it took place about 20 years ago, since then I don't think there has been all that big an increase. Although golfers have gotten older and the distances have remained fairly constant, so there probably has been some difference.

    In the thread on your favourite three holes, the first one I mentioned was the par 4 4th hole in Tramore from 20 years ago. When they redesigned the course they moved the green, because what was one of the hardest holes on the course became an interesting but relatively straightforward par 4. For the tee shot you had to hit to a fairway, with a valley of trees to the right. It was a driver hole and the tighter you were to the right with your tee shot the easier your second to the green would be. But too far right and you were in the trees and would be glad to find it (if you have a shot out). If you played a sensible tee shot and hit it where you aimed you were left with a mid iron to the green (carry required the whole way). And if you hit left of where you were aiming / were too cautious you could have a long iron / wood if you chose to go for the green at all. It was a great hole, until people started hitting it too far. In the late 90s there were a couple of people who could drive over the valley. A couple of years later a lot of the juniors and adults could do it. Now, I could comfortably clear it with a 5 wood. So, they moved the green, making it a very different hole. It's a shame, but it simply had to be done, the hole didn't work anymore. The new hole is good, but the old was probably the hole you'd remember most from the course if you played it once.

    It was a similar story for the 12th hole in Tramore - it was a decision whether or not to try to clear the stream on the fairway with your tee shot. Now, I wouldn't even think about it being there. If I sliced my drive / didn't catch it or something, I'd still expect to clear it by 30 metres. And if I was playing with most people under 60, I'd expect they could comfortably clear it. Whereas in my first few years playing, you'd know the guys in the club who could clear that stream.

    They're specific stories of why I would like to see the distances brought back. But the more general problem I have is that the number of shots I have to hit greens in regulation with a pitching wedge or less. I'll ignore Corballis where I'm a member now because it's a very unusual course. But thinking of Tramore from the white tees (where I was a member and most of the comps are played from), out of the par 4s and 5s there are only 2 holes on the front and 2 on the back where I would have more than a wedge into the green after a good drive. I'm not talking about Sunday best or anything like, I'm talking about at the lower end of my average range (220m). I'd consider it a lot more fun to hit a mix of low irons, high irons, wedges and even the odd wood into greens. Now in reality I go offline and will hit a few different length clubs into greens, but the point remains that the variety of shots that you would have hit into greens 20 years ago on the course has decreased. And the game is the worse for it in my opinion.

    Now, new courses have to be longer to cope with modern amateur distance, and older courses have to update themselves. I'd say if you look at just about any course that was built mid-90s or earlier that hasn't had course upgrades you would regard it as a dated course. And that largely means not long enough anymore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,131 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    GreeBo wrote: »
    1996 is a single and the first data point on the graph, which by definition cannot have a trend so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

    I said distances haven't increased in the last 20 years,



    so why is this an issue now the graph shows this,



    you chose to ignore this



    no trend upwards there is nothing to argue with there



    the trend up is from 1996 to 2000, then flat flat


    everyone else can see this, only you can't


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,346 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    Some thread - :D - didn't get to read much.

    I hope they can alter the game / ball / equipment . That it only has an impact on the top end pro and higher speed players. You'd hope (considering) energy and drag are a squared relationship with velocity - that this could be done simply with ball . Then this ball could be used by all still. I personally think this idea of different equipment is very bad - and very harsh on the manufacturers. To add to this, golfers are nuts and want to use the same equipment as the pros.

    This is all a terrible idea - if it makes the average golfer shorter - if it stops the downward trend of handicap - we seriously want to keep this trend. Golf is too hard and too slow. Keep the handicaps going down - and keep the amateurs hitting it longer and straighter (and this is only 230/ 240 yrds) at best for 95% of them.

    I'll have to take on board that, there is a claim there that distance has altered some courses even for our level. But that has to be a very small number of courses /holes , for a very small number of players - and so what - they get the odd birdie (Great). I think in all these debates - remember how s**t and how slow amateurs are at golf. It is important whatever they do this is not made worse.


Advertisement