Haven't seen a thread discussing the governing bodies' distance report that came out recently. They've made it very clear that some changes in equipment are coming down the pipe. Curious to hear the Golf board's thoughts on it, both as a fan of the professional game, and playing the game yourself. Reason I say both of those is because I personally have varying thoughts from those two perspectives.

As a fan of the professional game, I think these changes are way overdue. Players of their ability don't need equipment to make the game easier. I would even argue that we have (to a degree) seen only a portion of the talent these guys truly possess. Golf could be so much more entertaining getting away from bomb-and-gouge. I don't think equipment is entirely to blame. The types of golf courses they play and course setup has also made this style of play the one that is most rewarded on a weekly basis. There are only so many courses on the Tour schedule where creativity and shot making are at a premium... which is why I love watching the majors.

As a fairly avid player, I'll be curious to see how the changes will impact our level of play. I'm young enough that I've never played anything but this incredible technology (started playing seriously in 2012), so it's hard to tell how much of my game's shortcomings are truly majorly masked with what I'm playing now. I'm currently a high, single digit (fluttering back and forth between 8 - 9 index), but I have a feeling that will most certainly go up with reduced distance. Thinking I'll really need to start working on my short game a lot more once these come to fruition (I should be working more on it now, even with the good stuff in hand). For me, the game is already tough enough for those of us who maybe play once or twice a week, and rarely have time to practice. We do it for fun. And while challenging yourself with making it more difficult can be fun too, I hope they don't go overboard.

What say you?

I don't have much to add as I'm just becoming familiar with the reports existence. Like you, I'm very interested to see what comes of this and how quickly.

Came here to post the same thing as Webb.

Narrow the fairways, grow the rough higher, make the greens smaller and faster.

Don't make the pros play with special drivers or balls because technology evolving for the better.

jj9000 said:

---

Distance wasn't an issue when Jack was bombing and gouging the ball 325-350 yards at Augusta. No big deal then.

It's suddenly a problem, when in reality the average distance gains over the last decade have been minimal.

Remember how these guys were going to carve up the US Open at Merion at under 7K yards? Analysts were expecting 10-20 under.

Rose won at +1

Leave the advances in technology alone for everyone. Change for the better in technology is a good thing.

Want to make the game more difficult for the Tour players, make the course more difficult.

---

I'm not sure of your memory. Here's an interesting article on the distance change equipment has made ...

https://www.pga.com/archive/how-far-would-golfs-legends-drive-ball-using-modern-equipment

My take here is that equipment for the pros is an issue at all levels unless you like an emphasis on distance over shot-making.

Balls, putters, irons, woods. There is simply no reason they need 460cc drivers to get the extra 10-15 yards, plus balls and club-faces designed to minimize side spin.

It would be super-simple to create spin rate and rebound limits on pro tour equipment. Then let the brands build the specialized equipment they're already making meet those specs (if you think you're playing the same equipment as the pros, well, I'm not sure what to tell you).

And how many times has Augusta lengthened holes, yet still the course doesn't play as designed (for example, the green 15 at Augusta was meant to receive A fairway wood or long iron, not a mid iron as is done today. The landing area before the water is canted such that a layup to a wedge shot is difficult.

Places like Merion don't have the real estate to add length so they must narrow the fairways and grow the rough to protect itself. Playing there is like a punch in the gut even to a high single digit. It's not challenging, it's just flat difficult.

Nicklaus was definitely longer than his peers, but it's not accurate to say that driving distance has not increased.

https://www.pga.com/archive/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

Quote:

---

In 1980 (the first year that the PGA Tour's driving distance stats are available), Dan Pohl led the field while averaging 274.3 yards per drive. The Tour average was a meek 256.89 yards.

Since then, the average driving distance has steadily increased, rocketing upwards in the '90s and early 2000s. For 13 years from 1994 until 2006 the average increased every year, which is the longest such string since 1980. During that stretch, Daly led the Tour off the tee eight years in a row.

---

Augusta National opened in 1932. That year, Craig Wood won the long drive competition at the Word's Fair in Chicago. Longest drive was 253 yards.

Advancement in genetics, physical abilities and swing mechanics have undoubtedly allowed for distance gains. I just argue that course setup and adding length is the wrong way to address the issue.

If you're wanting to determine who can drive it the longest and straightest, you may as well just line the tour pros up on a Trackman.

But my solution would be for the PGA to play their events at courses designed for them. 8000+ yards, 6" rough on both sides of a 20 yard fairway with greens running at 15.

But leave the great courses alone for enjoyment by those who play it daily rather than a handful of tour pros who blow in and out for one week on occasion. Take a look at how the USGA narrowed the fairways at Pebble in preparation for he US Amateur and US Open over the last two years. The resort golfer who was paying north of $500 to play the course was forced to experience conditions not friendly to them in order to prep for an event over a year away.

1872walker said:

---

Advancement in genetics, physical abilities and swing mechanics have undoubtedly allowed for distance gains. I just argue that course setup and adding length is the wrong way to address the issue.

If you're wanting to determine who can drive it the longest and straightest, you may as well just line the tour pros up on a Trackman.

But my solution would be for the PGA to play their events at courses designed for them. 8000+ yards, 6" rough on both sides of a 20 yard fairway with greens running at 15.

But leave the great courses alone for enjoyment by those who play it daily rather than a handful of tour pros who blow in and out for one week on occasion. Take a look at how the USGA narrowed the fairways at Pebble in preparation for he US Amateur and US Open over the last two years. The resort golfer who was paying north of $500 to play the course was forced to experience conditions not friendly to them in order to prep for an event over a year away.

---

Im confused then. Who are you arguing with?

03ki11erAG said:

---

I bet Craig Wood didn't hit the range 5 days a week, have a trackman, work out and stretch on a daily basis either. Equipment has come a long way but it's not just the arrow improving. The Indian and the pool that we gather the Indian from is a lot bigger and better.

IMO it's better to look at how much the amateur has improved rather the professional.

---

Explain the dramatic differences in the distance the same indian hits? Quote from my article ...

Quote:

---

Study the career of Fred Couples to grasp the impact technology has made on driving distance at the game's highest level.

In 1982, Couples was a limberbacked 22-year-old with immense flexibility. He averaged 268.7 yards in driving distance, which was eighth on the PGA Tour.

In 2009, Couples was a 49-year-old with a decade-and-a-half battling serious back problems. He averaged 297.5 yards in driving distance, which was 24th on the PGA Tour.

---

I just don't think lengthening the courses is viable. When was the last "great" course to be built? New courses almost all focus on length and that's amazingly boring. If you limit the distance and forgiveness, all of a sudden skill (which these guys on the range, using the trackman and working out all possess) becomes much more important.

Those who would alter a course to accommodate equipment that makes those courses obsolete. Either by shrinking fairways and greens or adding length.

And anyone who advocates for heavy use of water hazards on a golf course.

Craig Wood winning the LD at 253 yards, then Jack winning the LD at 341 in 1963 (which, incidentally would have won it 2013/2014). The outrage!!!!

Jack was playing the scaled down yardage versions of the courses played today. So, I find it extremely ironic that Jack is waving this distance roll-back flag.

Nobody is really looking at the athletes that are playing the sport today in comparison to generation's past. Look at Woodland, DJ, Finau, Koepka...etc of this generation. Then, compare these to prior generation's "athletes".

I also don't see anyone looking at the other end of the equipment roll-back spectrum. An argument can be made for equipment roll-back hurting the shorter hitters more than the bombers. They'll be taking a hybrid into a Par 4, when DJ scales back to an 8 iron. Love me some Sunday afternoon Bogey golf watching.

I see no problem in limiting technology for the pro circuit. Cam Champ will still bomb the ball.. he just might not make EVERY SINGLE par 5 he ever plays reachable in 2 with a mid iron.

I think it's difficult to gauge Nicklaus' distance there without considering the variables, many of which are unknown. I think it's safe to say he was the outlier, so average driving distance gives the best data for comparison.

Course agronomy wasn't what it was then and fairways were undoubtedly firmer than what they currently are on courses the PGA tour plays. More like the British Open courses than places like Augusta we see today. Any tailwind?

Ever hit a persimmon driver? They generally have far more rollout than today's drivers which are predominantly carry. With less carry, you don't get the same benefit of distance if you hit it off line and into the rough. To me, that's a big factor in this talk about narrowing fairways and growing in the rough. With a current driver, pros don't care if they hit it 330 yards in the air and are 160 out (wedge distance) as they see it as more advantageous than being 200 out in the middle of the fairway.

It largely takes the strategy out of golf in favor of absolute distance.

And as a fan of the courses as much as the game itself, I see that as a detriment.

jj9000 said:

---

Craig Wood winning the LD at 253 yards, then Jack winning the LD at 341 in 1963 (which, incidentally would have won it 2013/2014). The outrage!!!!

Jack was playing the scaled down yardage versions of the courses played today. So, I find it extremely ironic that Jack is waving this distance roll-back flag.

Nobody is really looking at the athletes that are playing the sport today in comparison to generation's past. Look at Woodland, DJ, Finau, Koepka...etc of this generation. Then, compare these to prior generation's "athletes".

I also don't see anyone looking at the other end of the equipment roll-back spectrum. An argument can be made for equipment roll-back hurting the shorter hitters more than the bombers. They'll be taking a hybrid into a Par 4, when DJ scales back to an 8 iron. Love me some Sunday afternoon Bogey golf watching.

---

That really only happens if they dial back everything but the golf ball. The lack of spin on the golf ball is the main culprit that is giving the bombers a disproportionate advantage in distance. Put a ball that spins back in play for the Tour guys and watch what happens. Of course the guys with elite swing speeds would still have the length advantage off the tee, but by only 10-15 yards maybe, not 30-35. That dispersion then gets smaller getting down into the long irons & scoring clubs too. Just don't think swing speed is what should be rewarded as much as it is now, there are many more elements to the game that have gone by the wayside because of it.

mazag08 said:

---

I see no problem in limiting technology for the pro circuit. Cam Champ will still bomb the ball.. he just might not make EVERY SINGLE par 5 he ever plays reachable in 2 with a mid iron.

---

Agreed, baseball literally does this.

The same guys are playing the same equipment so I don't care too much.

What I do know is the courses I play don't have super hard fairways that roll 40 yards or pristine bunkers. Make poor shots more costly, especially around the green. Bold idea, eliminate raking of bunkers. Don't give so much relief for camera towers or bleachers, which lessen penalties for errant shot. Consider making where the gallery stands OB instead of being rewarded for stomping down the rough.

E said:

---

No one is saying to change the conditions for every day use, just only for tournaments.

---

How long do you think it takes to "make the fairways 8-10 yards more narrow" or "grow the rough up", let alone "decrease the size of the greens"?

You'd have to change the conditions for everyday use for months in order to cause that change for the one week of play.

https://www.pebblebeach.com/insidepebblebeach/a-labor-of-love-what-it-takes-to-create-u-s-open-conditions-at-pebble-beach/

Quote:

---

How do you get Pebble Beach Golf Links ready for the U.S. Open?

"We don't just flip the switch on Monday of championship week," says Chris Dalhamer, the Director of Golf Course Maintenance at Pebble Beach Resorts.

Course setup dry-runs start two years out, fairways shrink a full seven months before the championship and mowers let the rough go with six weeks to go. Public play is limited beginning May 6, and by the end of the month, play on the golf course is reduced by 70%.

---

I think those who are arguing against changing course design are looking at it as though it's permanent. I would assume the suggestion is, just as they do anyway, that for that month or so prior to tournaments when they prepare the course you implement changes such as narrower fairways and such.

I'd be wary of things like no raking of bunkers as that becomes more and more punitive as the day goes on (i.e. unfair to the field). I'm all for increasing the challenge...who doesn't love watching #17 of The Players? If you muted the exasperated words of the announcers, there's nothing exciting on TV about long drives.

If hitting into a bunker is supposed to penalize a player have the greens keepers walk through all the bunkers every morning instead of raking them.

I know Golf Club of Houston would basically shut down the tournament course for about a month before the tournamet...and a couple of months before that limit play and strictly cart path only. They overseeded with grass that died almost immediately after the tournament.

These courses do a ton of work to ready themselves to show well on TV and stop the pros from griping about every imperfection they face. It's a great expense as well as lesser conditions for the next few weeks/months after the tournament as it returns to its normal state.

The increase in tech and distance doesn't make shorter players any worse, it makes weaker players better. Driving distance and accuracy is a skill like any other, and with the advanced tech they have now someone like Wyndham Clark is within 5 years of Rory. Then everyone has a short iron in hand and it's a putting contest.

It only hurts the best players.

I don't have an opinion of what type of player is helped or hurt more by technology.

My opinion is that the courses suffer, not only with the loss of strategy and options but in the increased resources required. Additional land, more water, more acres to maintain, etc.

It's the one sport where the equipment is allowed to outgrow the arena. And in my opinion it's almost entirely allowed in order to better enable the equipment manufacturers to sell the latest/greatest equipment that will give you more distance off the tee.

1872walker said:

---

I could not disagree more with the argument that the solution is to make golf courses harder (narrow fairways, smaller greens and the like) or longer. Catering to the pro game is detrimental to the game of golf.

If you play the game in an exacting point and shoot method, and you only do so to make a living out of it, then of course you'd want a test that would eliminate the strategy and focus on the execution that separates yourself from your peers.

But for the 99.99999% of us who play the game for enjoyment, getting your teeth kicked in on a daily basis would take the joy out of the game. The thought that goes into a wide open course where you are constantly asked questions and your decision as well as execution plays a factor in the outcome is essential.

Also, compare golf to baseball. We haven't constantly altered the dimensions of stadiums, or made the setups quickly to prevent major leaguers contained with current technology available today. We've precludeD the elite players from using the latest technology in bats and have reigned the ball in. Yet we allow little leaguers and others to use whatever technology is available.

Golf can be challenging without being punishing.

---

I believe the idea was to make the set ups for the pros much more difficult, not for us daily fee players.

They aren't mutually exclusive as both play on the same course.

If you want to give free reign to the pros to have extremely long courses with rough, fairways and greens that they can manipulate to make it as punishing as possible, so it on their owners courses like TPC and he new PGA headquarters in Frisco.

But if you create those conditions on a member's course, it requires an interruption and manipulation so great that it becomes detrimental to the membership for an extended time.

I played Pebble in June 2018, a full year before the open. My brother played it in October of 2017. They had already shrunk the fairways in the fall of 17, and by June 2018, the rough was already grown more than normal (now they did have the US Am there in August of 2018).

That being said, I don't know how it plays normally, but my caddie told me that it was already playing a lot tougher than it should be for a resort course with a US Open more than a year away.

I do agree that they need to make courses harder, but they have to be careful in doing it. I enjoyed the **** out of playing Pebble, but I do want to go back and play it under normal conditions to see what the difference is. I got some ****ty breaks and terrible lies in the rough because it was thicker than it normally would be, according to my caddie.

The easiest way to dial back distance is through the golf ball. I was watching one of those made for tv match play videos from the mid 90s between Payne Stewart and Nick Price. They were driving the ball 250-260ish and hitting 9 irons from 120. Technology of the ball, along with the clubs, has drastically changed the game, no question about it.

1872walker said:

---

They aren't mutually exclusive as both play on the same course.

---

I'd guess 99.9% of golf played is not on courses used on the PGA Tour. Also, as mentioned, those courses change anyway. The only thing they can't really do suggested in this thread is make a green smaller, that definitely would affect everyone.

Now, I've played Torrey the day before it shut down for the Farmers, and that was miserable. That rough w/o spotters makes for a SLOW round. After 5.5 hours had to leave due to darkness w/o finishing. Front 9 took 3 hours. Never again....

To me the simple solution is to increase the spin rates on the ball. It's rare to see a pro hit a big hook, or have to worry about his wedges spinning to much. The ball now hits and stops, or even rolls forward. I still like seeing pro players bomb it, but I'd like to see it used strategically in the round, not every tee shot. If the course is narrowed and the rough lengthened, you will see the bombers hitting irons off the tee, which for spectators can get boring. The players don't like it either. I would also like to see more diversity in course selection for tour events. The modern course is architecturally and visually boring. Get away from the lush look and allow fairways to get firm and fast. It's better for the environment and helps to identify creative shot making.

Another thing that wont change but definitely has an effect is the stadium design courses trying to cram as many people in an area as possible. At a bunch of courses this takes away trees and other natural deterrents to where length and close rough is all the defense the course can have. It also allows for bigger misses by the bombers. In many instances its better to miss the fairway by a bunch and land in trampled down areas compared to the initial rough.

And there can also be post-tournament issues. I played Pebble last August. When they attempted to return the fairways to their original boundaries after the U.S. Open, they cut them too close and there were dead stripes running down the sides of the fairways on multiple holes. They had discounted the greens fees for this, but I was lucky enough to be there on the first day they returned to normal pricing.