My Thoughts On: The Distance Debate, and Name That Track! (8/2/21)

Full Content

Firstly, the answer to last week’s Name That Track was: Oakmont Golf Club, PA

Be on the lookout for scores this week at The Moonah PGA Classic, on The Open Course at Moonah Links! Scores at www.PGA.org.au

On to the content!

My Thoughts On: The Distance Debate

There has been a lot of talk within the distance debate recently. Since the R&A and USGA released their study on how the massive increase in distance off the tee has negatively impacted the game. 

So I thought I would give my thoughts: 

I think there’s no question about whether or not the combination of technology in golf clubs and golf balls has contributed to the huge increase in the average distance on the PGA and European Tours.

In the 70’s, Jack was hands down the longest on tour with an average yardage somewhere around 270 yards off the tee, which with a balata and persimmon is no small feat. As of this writing the average on the PGA Tour sits at 296.2 yards with the longest players jostling for position around the 325-330 yard mark. 

For those who are now formulating the argument in their head along the lines of; “well they’re just better athletes now,” this may be partially true as in the golfers on tour ON AVERAGE are in better shape, are healthier and their bodies work a little better due to access to and knowledge of more trainers and physiotherapists on tour. However, the best are certainly not better athletes, in the sense that they now somehow produce 50 yards extra off the tee from speed alone.

Let us also consider the rate at which athletes CAN improve their physical abilities; the 10-second barrier for the 100m Sprint was broken in 1968, with 9.97 seconds. The world record now stands at 9.58 seconds and was set in 2009, which represents a 3.91% improvement in speed over 41 years. Are we then to believe that the change from 275y in the 60’s to 325y in the 2020’s, an 18.18% increase in distance, is solely due to an improvement in athletic ability?

Are we seriously being asked to believe that, even though the sprinters train endlessly to run faster and shave milliseconds off their times, and golfers also have to practice their short game, putting and cut-up iron shots as well; that the golfers are apparently able to peruse increases in athletic ability at more than 4 times the rate of improvement as Usain Bolt and his counterparts? Please. Perhaps, if this is the case, it’s not Jamaica that is the Mecca for athletic development and the sprinters should instead be training on the back of the range at TPC Sawgrass.

So, having accepted that yes golfers are in better shape and perhaps healthier on average than their counterparts pre-1990’s. We can accept with SOME logic that technology in equipment has contributed most of the gains to the radical increase in distance over the last 25 years. 

But here is where I may take an unexpected turn in my thinking, because I actually don’t think it’s a problem. I don’t want to see the ball or technology reeled back in, and let me explain why.

Being smuggled in under the veil of the distance problem is the actual issue and real threat to the game’s integrity. This real threat is; the FORGIVENESS that comes with technology. I would not like to see the ball go shorter, I want to see the stabilising nature of the ball stripped back to make mis-hits go a consummate distance offline for how far it is traveling. THE FURTHER IT GOES, THE MORE RISK OF HITTING IT OFFLINE THERE SHOULD BE.

The increase in average swing-speed on tour is a function of a few things; 

1. Yes, players are probably on average stronger and a bit faster than 30 years ago

2. The shaft technology allows for more intelligent kick-points that increase speed

3. But the main reason, is that you CAN swing harder and the ball will still go basically straight.

That last point is the crux, players are swinging faster because they can get away with it. The risk of hitting driver no longer exists the way it always has in our game.

I have no doubt that if you gave Jack Nicklaus or Ben Hogan today’s equipment they could basically match the swing speeds of the best players now, but the difference is that is used to be a risk hitting driver, because if you didn’t time it just right, the thing went miles offline, or never got in the air.

This was Greg Norman’s weapon, he was one of the first to be able to hit the ball 300y AND CONSISTENTLY ONLINE. Now, because of technology, every kid in college has this ability.

The real problem here is the forgiveness, I have no issue with the technology being amazing, I think the equipment companies deserve a lot of praise for that. I just think that we need to bring the risk back to the driver.

This also serves as somewhat of an indefensible strategy for the best players, because your average social player won’t hit the ball far enough to actually spin it offline 50 yards. Therefore taking all the air out of Rory’s argument that the distance issue doesn’t apply 99.9% of the population. I agree, it doesn’t, and that doesn’t matter. If only the players swinging it 115mph and up suffered from say; a 2-times increase in offline shot dispersion. That would keep the current distance and accuracy in tact for the 99.9%, while making the Professionals honest again in thinking twice about pulling driver.

So to sum up; the problem is not the distance, and the companies should be praised for their advances in technology, which is mind-boggling. The problem is the forgiveness that comes along with it that eradicates all the risk of hitting driver. The longest club in your bag should carry the most risk, its why its better to hit a sand-wedge into a green than a 4-iron. All we need to do is make the regulations reflect a risk involved in hitting driver again. No problem with hitting it 350 yards, so long as the offline shots go 60 yards offline. Reflecting their balata predecessors.

Proposal; bring spin back, make all balls fly as they do with centre-hits, while making offline and off-centre hits go exponentially further offline the further the balls goes. This will have the double affect of mostly maintaining the game for the 99% while brining the high-level game back into balance as far as the risk-reward paradigm goes.

Love to know what you think, especially if you disagree, see you in the comments!

Name That Track!!

Thanks for reading,

BM