The distance debate

blue note

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120391427#Comment_120391427

I played in Corballis on Tuesday and there was a strong wind, but not a crazy one. On the one par 5 I had driver, wedge to the green. I can qualify that by saying that I pushed it a bit so took a shorter line than I'd ever intentionally choose, but on the other hand it landed in the rough, so got basically no run. It was 9m shorter than the other drive I hit with the wind that day. And it's a good example of the advantage of getting it up there - with the lie I had I wasn't confident of getting any decent contact with the wedge and I didn't. It went 99m, but I still carried all the trouble with a fat wedge and left myself a bump and run and an easy 2 putt par. That's not the way it should be.

Hitting driver & wedge on a par 5 should be a freakish thing for most club golfers. But I played 16 rounds last year, so about 50-60 par 5s. I left myself gap wedges for my approach twice and I'm pretty sure wedges another couple of times. You'd need to really catch it for that, and have hard ground, a good wind with you and forward tees, but it's far from as rare as it should be. God only knows what the biggest hitters in a club are doing.

What I'd like is to have some par 5s that I simply can't reach in two. And those that I can to need a wood or at least a low iron to do it.

It's been said before, but allowing people to play off different tees would be a great idea if people would choose tees appropriately. Basing it on handicap would by and large work, but obviously I wouldn't like that because it wouldn't be ideal for me. But if you let people choose, you know full well that lots of people will just play from the longer tees because that's what their playing partner is doing.

spacecoyote

Jaysus, we definitely seem to have massive outliers of players distances on here.

Look at the data from Arccos for 2022 from all their data (millions of shots)

There's not really an issue with amateur distances, and I know that for the peak average there (scratch guys in their 20s) to average 274, they're going to have some 300 yard drives, but you'd think it's the norm based on some of the chat on here.

FixdePitchmark

Your talking like 1 in 50 players that length is causing an issue in the amateur game.

You couldn't justify any changes on that basis.

The only reason I'd suggest a change for amateurs is to remove the (stupid word) bifurcation argument.

If the new ball has very limited impact on the vast majority of amateurs [due to vastly lower swing speeds]...it probably is worth considering for the greater good..

These 1 in 50 guys would suffer a bit ...but so what.

Bluenote...your a great striker of the ball and have a hurling background..but I wouldn't be using that par 5 as any reference in the argument...massively elevated tee...wind typically helping..a downhill landing zone on very hard ground.

Most courses have 5 par 5s...about 2 will be reachable and 3 won't...I wouldn't be mad keen to force regulation golf on people..golf is hard enough with rare joys out there ...under regulation is a rare joy for amateurs...and if they can do it, they have hit 2 great shots..

The argument is really about amateurs...I know golfers can be delusional...but again I enjoy watching these 1 in 50 freaks..they would still reach the par 5s with a reduced ball..

OEP

I don't think the amateur game needs a reduced ball either but it also wouldn't do any harm - it'll probably only bring the distance back to how far people were hitting it 20 years ago and the majority of courses in Ireland are a lot more the 20 years old so were designed for those distances. The pro game needs it.

Ivefoundgod

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120392216#Comment_120392216

Misinterpreting the data there to be fair. The 274 isn't carry distance (Arccos is not a launch monitor, it just tracks the distance between each shot you hit). If you look at where I see must long club golfers distance (I don't mean carry) i'd have looked at ages 20-49 and under 10 h'cap the distances are 238-251 total which is about what I'd expect for most players. Looking at my old arccos stats for my last driver I averaged 261 total distance, my swing speed is 105ish and a good strike will carry 250yds, have had drives that travelled over 300 yards but i'm not dumb enough to think I can carry a ball that far and that is my normal distance. I'd agree that a lot of people overestimate their distances but i've had multiple trackman fittings and sessions as well as arccos data and am 95% confident thats about right for me. I also play with players who regularly outdrive me when we both hit good shots, not sure why thats hard to believe to be honest.

I'm not actually in favour of the amateur using the MLR ball at this stage but it also wouldn't bother me in the slightest if we did adopt it, i'd expect it'll happen sooner or later in any case.

Quahog217

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120391614#Comment_120391614

This statement doesn't really make sense. You want to hit all the clubs in your bag. You can do this by hitting 3W, Hybrid or 4 iron off the tee. But you don't want to handicap yourself by doing this. But you have no problem in everyone else getting handicapped off by the tee with a shorter ball?

Innish_Rebel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120391364#Comment_120391364

But it is not "punishing" the longer drivers of the golf-ball - it will roll everyone (PRO) back proportionally. I've read some calculations that for the longer hitting guys the gain will actually be positive for them.

By that the strokes gain models (lets pick for ease Rory & Denny Mc (average pro) as they just played and -5% across board) say par 4 470 if Rory hits Drive 320 & Denny 300, leaving 150 & 170 to green Rory hits PW, Denny hits 9/8 iron. With Roll-back tee shots now 305 and 285 leaving 165 & 185 - with Rory now hitting 8 iron & Denny now hitting 6/5 iron. Strokes gained says Rory will proportionally do better with his 8i v Denny's 6i as opposed to Rory's PW v Denny's 9i.

I'm not saying this solution is great I am just answering (I think) the point that it is "punishing" these athletes that are driving the ball amazingly. The margins are tiny - but it over the course of a season should benefit the better hitters of the golf ball.

blue note

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120394452#Comment_120394452

I'm saying that we should all be handicapped in the same way the pros are. As opposed to people just opting for it. Rory McIlroy might agree with the regulations being introduced, but he's obviously not going to voluntarily play that new (old) ball if everyone else keeps playing the current ones.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120391231#Comment_120391231

most don't have a hope of hitting a 280 yard drive and a 220 yard 3 wood, that's why GIR is 3

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120391023#Comment_120391023

the average drive someone on the PGA is hitting isn't even 300, that's measured on the two easiest driving holes on the course, so wide par 5s, and they are consistent

of all the people who have hit even 280plus, they rarely are

so like with being say a 5 handicapper, only about 5% are

probably the same % are hitting it that long

blue note

Not many are hitting 280 yards routinely, but lots are hitting 250. And if 250 is a normal drive for you, you're going to be getting a few to 280. Between catching one well, getting a bit of extra run, a helping wind... it's amazing how many drives will creep forward another 30 yards. I think this is where people get the misconception that they hit it much further than they do - someone who hits it about 250 gets fairly regular drives out to 280 and then thinks that they're the normal ones and the shorter ones are those that they didn't catch, or the wind affected.

Anyway, one of my main points was that we're constantly playing from forward tees these days. So a 500 yard par 5 on the card will often be 480 from the tees put out. Our par 72 courses might be 6,600 yards from the back tees, but they rarely get used. The members might play it as 6,300 yards more often. Then with the forward tees it could be 6,100 yards. If we reduced the differences between the longer and shorter guys distances, we might even be able to get rid of one of those sets of tees.

That par 5 doesn't sound ridiculously short or anything by the way, particularly if it's straight and you can't reduce the 500 yards by taking a shortcut. I'm just struggling to understand how so few can reach it in 2.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120395024#Comment_120395024

so how far are you hitting 😁

CSWS101

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120395024#Comment_120395024

Would definitely argue the latter, the vast majority of people are playing tees too far back than they have any business playing. I think you are massively overestimating the amount of people at club level that can drive the ball 250.

OEP

A lot of holes, particularly par 5s, allow you to take a line that shortens the yardage if you can hit it far enough. So on a 500 yard par 5, you might only be hitting it 470 or 480 because you can cut a corner. It has become more common to be able to take these lines because of increased distance.

Plus you have variables like run, the front of the green being 15 yards from the middle so that's more distance off.

P-Avg discounts the mishits, really bad shots etc.. That's obviously total distance and not carry. The P-Avg for the irons are also mostly off the tee, so I'm not hitting it that far from the fairway. I play with plenty of guys that hit it as far and further than me. My handicap is 6.

Rikand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120399020#Comment_120399020

I'm a 6 handicap as well and you are comfortably longer than me :)

OEP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120401319#Comment_120401319

I don't know how old you are but I think it's an age thing too, not in terms of being younger and stronger but with older clubs and balls, centre strikes and accuracy were more important so people didn't swing as hard. Now the equipment is so forgiving that you can swing much harder because mishits aren't that bad. So you grow up trying to hit it hard which naturally increases your swing speed.

I'm in my 30s, I see lads in their early 20s who might only be off 12 to 16 but can hit it a mile.

Deeper Blue

It always astounds me how far posters on this forum hit the ball, some of those distances wouldn't be out of place at the matchplay this week, fair dues.

moycullen14

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120402060#Comment_120402060

Yeah, I agree. It doesn't fit with my experience at all. Personally, I'd (9 handicap) be looking at 370-380yds for two shots - driver + 3ir rescue/5w. No way am I (or any of my partners) getting on 500yd par 5 in two. That's the preserve of the very low handicappers (<2) in our club.

If you can comfortably hit the ball 500yds in two shots (280 drive + 220 wood/iron) then you're either a very low handicapper or you have a truly woeful short game.

Par 4s seem to max out at about 410-420 on the top courses off the whites - at least have being being less that 400. A drive of 270-280 will leave you with a short iron to these. Question is, why are all these long hitters such bad golfers????

Ivefoundgod

I'd imagine as @OEP said it depends on age group and playing partners how likely you are to see big hitters, the other thing is that its not like all the people who can hit the ball that far give themselves that chance or do it every weekend on the long par 5s. Worth mentioning as well that i've played plenty of courses where the scorecard lists a hole as 500 yards or more, that is typically referring to the middle of the green. But when i'm standing on the tee box the GPS is showing it as 470 to the front of the green and 490 to the middle. I would say it is fairly rare for amateurs to hit a 500 yard green in 2 if its a full 500 yards but with two good hits I know plenty of amateurs who could get it there which is what we're talking about. Its theoretically possible, it doesn't happen every weekend. I'd also say its fairly rare that an amateur plays a genuine hole that is 500 yards to the front of the green. 240 yard drive, 220 yard wood/hybrid and you won't be too far off which is all very doable for reasonable number of players.

Comparing some of the distances mentioned here with pro golf is a bit ridiculous, no distances that i've seen mentioned here are even remotely comparable to pro golf. I think any of us talking about long hitters are saying about 250ish carry with the driver on a good hit, that is nowhere near tour distance. Look at swing speeds people mention on here too, i haven't seen anyone talk about their 120+mph swing speed, most are 90-105. The advent of trackman and stuff like stack/superspeed sticks, stats and the importance of distance to low scoring means that a lot of good golfers are chasing speed and distance which is why you see 'long' hitters in the amateur game.

swededmonkey

Playing off 13 i can hit a 500 par 5 in 2 shots but that's only if I smash the granny off it off the tee and nail my second. More often than not, I'm blocked out or in rough. Being able to do something and consistently putting yourself in that position to take it on in 2, are very different things.

Bike Hogan

I'm looking at the Garmin Approach G12 to get my father something just for lining up shot distances but after checking the list of supported courses, most of his regular courses aren't on the official Garmin list.

Is there a way to update and add more or is it just whatever Garmin gives as standard (which is a lot but not the courses he plays) and nothing more? Is there any other device you could suggest that fulfills this needs? Main focus being more Irish courses.

blue note

So it sounds like they've decided against bifurcation? While there's no doubt this was decided in the interest of the manufacturers rather than club golfers, I still think it's a good thing for us. Padraig Harrington was saying recently that the majority of Dublin golf courses are now obsolete because of what the decent young golfers can do now on them. When he says decent he's probably talking about the scratch or better lads, but he's probably talking about them from the back tees too. An awful lot of places aren't using those back tees week in week out, so those lines that those lads can take from the tees from the backs, a hell of a lot of golfers can take from the normal Sunday tees. If it forces the Sunday golfers to play the courses more like they were intended it'll be a good thing in my view.

I wonder could it have a side affect of slightly faster rounds too. Those couple of shots that just went out of bounds or into a hazard might just hang on in play now. There might just be a little less looking for balls, which will be a good thing for the whole course!

I wonder how they'll bring this in in the amateur game though. Companies will keep selling the longest balls for as long as they can and some people will have a stock of a couple of years worth of balls. I'm not sure how you'll bridge that gap. Plus there's the second hand market and balls found. I'd say the migration will take years.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121460854#Comment_121460854

I think they've mooted Jan 2028 for the pros/elite players and Jan 2030 for the rest of us.

token56

I really don't think the ball change is going to make a difference to the majority of average golfers. Look at the dispersion for amateurs. How many amateur golfers are actually flushing their shots hitting the sweet spot even more than 50% of the time. Lower handicaps obviously more often but your mid to high handicaps I very much doubt it. Bad ball strikes hurt an amateurs distance more than the golf ball itself ever will.

Mantis Toboggan

Bifurcation is the way they should have gone with this.

spacecoyote

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121460854#Comment_121460854

The USGA supposedly did studies previously and the finding was that people hitting the ball shorter will actually make rounds longer.

Roll back for amateurs makes no sense to me, it can only have a negative impact. You're basically penalising Average Joe golfer for the abilities of the elite golfers (even when Paddy is talking about it, hes talking about elite amateurs).

Look at the stats. The average drove distance for a 5 hcap golfer is actually around 240 yards.

The roll back won't just impact driver, it'll impact all clubs.

Say they do a 5% decrease. The 5 hcap now averages 228 yards off the tee.

Take a 400 yard par 4. Working with averages, they used to have:

240 drive

160 approach (let's say that's a 7i for the example)

Now they have

228 drive

172 approach (that used to be their 6i say, go with a 12 yard gap for irons)

But their 6i now only travels 163 yards (as thats also reduced by 5%), so they now have to hit a 5i to reach the green.

So Driver-7i becomes Driver-5i for an average 5 hcap.

If I look at myself (I'm closer to a 7 than a 5 hcap, but in the range), my GIR with a 7i is 64%, with a 5i its 33%

So for me, it means less GIR, so likely more shots, and longer rounds.

And that's looking at 5hcap numbers. Look at a 15 hcap say, as that's closer to the average golfer.

They average 220 off the tee (getting all my data from Arccos which is hundreds of thousands of data points before any starts shouting that their a 20 index that averages 250 off the tee)

The 220 now becomes 209. The same 400 yard par 4 that was, say,

220 drive, 180 hybrid

Becomes domething like:

209 drive, 191 3 Wood

Their GIR goes from somewhere around 16% to somewhere closer to 10%

Padraigs suggestion of roll back on number of clubs would be an interesting one, go back to only 10 clubs in the bag.

blue note

Oh right, well if they've actually done studies on how it affects the length of rounds then that's worth a lot more than my gut.

I still think courses and players will easily adapt. If the course is too long - play from tees further up. The reality is that even club golfers are hitting it further than they used to. I know the data suggests that the distances haven't changed too much, but that must be because the average golfer is getting older.

Russman

Obviously tongue in cheek, I wonder if one of the tours decided to not adapt the shorter flying ball, and carry on regardless, would they qualify for world ranking points ?😁

I'd love to see some data around the often quoted line that you only really see the "real" benefit of the modern ball at above 110/111 mph swing speed. I know Dennis Pugh used to regularly mention that when he was on Sky Sports. Maybe it will be the case that there'll be little to no difference to club level players ? I think I remember seeing something when the rollback was first mentioned, that it wasn't a linear progression with speed and distance. Open to correction/clarification though. Definitely agree with the post above that mentions strike being far more relevant for club players (broadly speaking).

Is it today we're expecting the proposal ?

spacecoyote

One other piece I saw (from guys that do golf equipment testing) was that Acushnet (Titleist parent company) only produce one model of ball today that meets the conditions being proposed by the USGA/R&A, that's...(drumroll)....

The Pinnacle Soft

Ivefoundgod

Acushnet have been the most public anti rollback of the OEMs by some distance so I wouldn't read anything at all into what they say (or any OEM for that matter) on this debate. It was OEMs who and pros who refused to accept bifurcation so if you've an issue with this thats where your ire should be directed, not the USGA/R & A. I've no issue with the rollback personally, very unlikely to make much difference to anyone but the best AMs or those with very fast swing speeds. We've yet to see how it will be implemented but any coverage i've seen is that it will not be linear as the above post suggests. USGA posted a screen that shows average male amateur will lose 3-5 yards so a negligible difference. If it makes the pro game more interesting and starts putting long irons back in players hands at the majors and big PGA events then I can see no argument against it.