"For those who love the game."

Distance misconceptions Fans don't really care how many yards the ball goes By Mark Grim  Preserve Golf Publisher November 19, 2005 One of the reasons professional golf is so popular is because players consistently drive the ball farther and farther than in years past. Interest in the game is on the rise because these distances are getting longer and longer each year. If there is an equipment rollback, we will lose a lot of these fans.  On the surface these claims appear to coincide with reality. We shall attempt to prove otherwise.  After the 2003 season, 11 players were averaging over 300 yards per drive on measuring holes. Almost exactly two years later and the end of the 2005 season, 26 players are now above the 300 mark. We contend that this technologically induced distance explosion has little--or nothing--to do with the current popularity of the game. Agreed, the mammoth drives that are becoming so commonplace are fun to watch. But that's not the topic of discussion here.  The real truth about driving distance is that when discussed in terms of yardage alone, the number is relative. Fans really don't care what the yardage number is for drives in competitive professional golf tournaments.  "Wow, he hit it 300 yards," really meant something in 1991 before the recent distance explosion. It was huge relative to the leader in driving distance that year at 290 yards. Now it's, "Wow, he hit it 380 yards."  Even that is almost becoming old hat. It seems silly to suggest that there are many fans that came into the fold primarily because they saw 350-yard drives. If this form of entertainment is taken from them with an equipment rollback, they may leave us as fans, it is apparently believed.  With the help of TV announcers, in-home fans know reasonably quickly how far Tiger's drive was. Drives are observed, calculated, dissected, evaluated and averaged for our viewing pleasure. Announcers often let us know things like, "Phil has only hit 6 fairways in the first two rounds, yet is 11 under par. Wow, what a short game." It is very hard to believe that some viewers will say after a rollback, "That drive was only 305 yards, I'm going to watch the tennis match instead. Give me the clicker." (Are they still called clickers?) What is it then that long drive fans really want? John Daly averaged almost 290 yards per drive in 1991--about 8 yards better than second place Greg Norman who averaged a measly 282 yards. Again, to long drive fans,the most impressive aspect is not the number 290.  The most important figure here is the number 8, not 290. That's what the fans want, love and demand to see. He hits it so much farther than everyone else currently does. Come, let us crown him the long drive king of the tour. What fans really care about is how far the ball goes relative to the rest of the playing field. Along with Daly's personality and early major championship win, his ability to "grip it and rip it" better than anyone is probably the biggest reason for his unmatched popularity for so long in spite of his few wins (albeit, two majors, which shows how much talent he really has). Golf fans love the long ball, and most halfway serious golf fans know the player who is the current long ball king. Fans check the statistics to see who is at the top of the list and by how many. They may marvel at the 318-yard total, or whatever it is. But the most important thing to the long drive fan is that the name is at the top of the list and by how many.  From the on-course outside-the-ropes fan's perspective, it is difficult to observe the difference between a 300-yarder and a 380-yarder in person. I don't believe there are spotters to inform the gallery how far the drives are going. Sometimes you really can't see much more than the back of someone's head, anyway.  So again, it's the distance relative the rest of the field (or for the on-course fan, relative to the distance of the drives in the threesome they are following, before they leave that observing spot and walk to the next hole).  Another distance issue that has been discussed, but not enough, is the turbo factor. Fred Funk pointed this out in the October 2005 Golf Magazine. "And I don't even know what the threshold is. Maybe it's 115 mph-plus" (swing speed). Funk said he heard some longer hitters talking about a new ball that gave them 15-20 yards more distance in the air. He tried the same ball and "I picked up like two yards." In other words, like many other tour players, his swing speed was not quite fast enough to take advantage of current driver (or ball) technology to its fullest. He can't swing it fast enough and the turbo charger doesn't kick in, so to speak. Therefore, his drives don't soar like those who swing just a little faster.  If it is true that this threshold is legitimate and can be observed and repeated scientifically, it seems obvious that it should be addressed and corrected. The longer hitters already have the advantage of more distance. They don't need this advantage multiplied exponentially. Talk about the rich getting richer. The USGA recently celebrated the effectiveness of its ability to deal with all the challenges that technology brings vis-à-vis the rules of golf. If equity is the goal of the USGA as it says it is, Funk's threshold, if provable, is undoubtedly a very serious inequity. Hopefully, such statements by the USGA aren't just the warm fuzzies of how wonderful the USGA believes its approach is (or what others may see as a lack of an effective one) to the problems it is facing. This rejoicing in the "beauty of the organization" is common in sterile government task force groups. Members can easily lose focus and slide into unspoken convictions sounding something like this. "This sure is a wonderful group we have. Here we are, talking about real problems people are having. We have every expert at this meeting, planners, politicians, law enforcement, media. We have this great task force in place, now we can address the problem. Life is wonderful. Who's turn is it to bring the cookies next month?"  After three years of monthly meetings, non task force members sense the group has lost focus when it is announced that an agreement has finally been reached as to what the name of the task force should be. A good fictional example of the winning name might be, "Septic Skeptics."  Although members proudly announce their new name to the world, non members whisper amongst themselves, "Is this group sterile naturally, or did it give itself a vasectomy?"  As we have pointed out earlier, former USGA Technical Director Frank Thomas put his neck on the line, saying that Newton and the laws of gravity were now all that would be needed to regulate the distance problem.  "Fortunately, these advances in distance, because of technology, are coming to an end. Future increases in distance will be primarily a result of improved technique and talent," Thomas said back in 2003. As we said earlier, the number of players averaging over 300 yards per drive is up from 11 in 2003 to 26 since then, with leader Scott Hend lobbing his bombs an average of 319 yards (guess who was last in driving accuracy at 45 percent?) The stats could be skewed even more because the players may be hitting 3 woods on some of the measurable holes as well (more than did in years past, it can properly be assumed.) What we are talking about is the direction the game should take in the future. Should we allow technology to keep making courses shorter and shorter for the most elite players? Do we want the power game emphasized more or less?  Everyone knows that driving it far doesn't automatically equal lower scores. However, the game's elite players are admitting that they would rather bomb it into the rough 50 yards from any green so they can hit a lob sand wedge than be in the fairway 155 yards out with a good angle after carefully placing a long iron off the tee. What does this say about the state of the game in and of itself? Think about it, they know the chances are great they will hit it in the rough, which is supposed to be a place where you don't want to hit it. Yet they have properly calculated that the chances of making birdie is better from there. So it's, bombs away! It seems preposterous. If this alleged bombers' edge is in any way made possible by Funk's threshold, we really do have a problem. We must add that Mr. Funk may be wrong to automatically assume that it is primarily the ball and not the huge trampoline-faced drivers and fishing rod shafts accompanied by the higher swing speeds that give this alleged turbo boost.  The following AP quote was taken from SI.com: For those who believe the golf ball is solely responsible for distance gains, the pro-am at the Chrysler Championship showed other factors at work. The wooden driver, for example. As the PGA Tour reached a conclusion to its "Drive to a Billion" charity campaign, it had five persimmons (sic) drivers available on the first tee and asked players to give it a crack, then use their titanium drivers for the shot that counted on their pro-am scorecard. Adam Scott hit it pure, a majestic ball flight with a slight draw to the middle of the fairway. Out came his Titleist titanium driver--same golf ball, by the way--and another beautiful swing. Stepping it off, it was 32 yards longer. Davis Love III also ripped the wooden driver. His modern driver sent the ball 40 yards longer. Again, that was not a scientific test either, but surely we have enough to warrant further investigation. Of course, the USGA will probably continue its policy of pretending to be on top of it, while nothing really ever happens. Septic Skeptics? We do know that as more players continue to drive it a mile, greens keepers will have no choice but to make greens slicker and slicker, put pins closer to edges, etc. If they can't make the holes longer due to real estate restrictions, they have to make it more difficult to get up and down from near the greens in the rough. Is that what the game should become?   Some players are afraid to say too much about how the advantage favors the faster swings because it will sound like they are whining.  That shouldn't be the case because we are concerned about fairness and equity for all players. What would be nice is if some of the bombers would admit this turbo advantage instead of remaining quiet. That would be more in line with the historic tradition of golfers self policing the game. Now it's time for us to play our familiar song. After all, we are among those adhering to the preservationist view, as the USGA has put it. Again, it would be best to roll back technology, preferably starting with the size of the driver, and keep the challenges around the green about the same. This should encourage shot making over power in the future. Forcing the pros to use wood drivers again would work. But the first step should be to reduce the legal size of the club head from 460 cc down to about 250 cc. How big of a committee does it take to figure this out? What's the big deal? To contact Mark Grim send an email to:  markrgrim@hotmail.com

 © 2003-2005 Preserve Golf. Founded November 10, 2003. All Rights Reserved.