PODCAST Off Course: Episode 15: Does Golf Have a Distance Problem?

[Templet0n]

The Aluminum bat isn't allowed in MLB because of safety.

The argument being made about pros to play different equipment is that they aren't playing the course how it is designed. yet modern courses since limits were set have been in place. Maybe its time to not play the same dozen courses anymore or improve them for pros to play. Its not the length, its the layout, combined with the 40 yards of roll weekly for those highlight watchers that don't watch the golf, but choose to pick a stat or two (see @golfunfiltered ). Some of the hardest courses on tour are not the longest.

Then it shifted to CT debate, as if that was how clubs were measured in the 60s and 70s.
Then it shifted to land being available. Then it was about par being made foolish.

All for less than a 15 yard difference in over a decade.

People are making it out to be that distance and speed is not a skill and anybody can do it, yet so few actually do. Setting a random line as you said works in theory, but what about the KF Tour? Mini tour? US Am? Collegiate? LPGA? Mexican Mini Tour?

YES!!!! While still impossible, I love this answer the most.

 

[golfunfiltered]

To be clear, there's no question distance and control are skills. More accurately, outcomes of skillsets.

 

[HipCheck]

Setting a random line as you said works in theory, but what about the KF Tour? Mini tour? US Am? Collegiate? LPGA? Mexican Mini Tour?

Any tour where you wear sandals, there should be ZERO equipment limits.

 

[shanewu]

Haven't listened but don't think there is a distance problem. I do think golf has a "talk about the same **** for decades and decades and decades" problem.

 

[Jman]

I enjoyed this one! Not so much Adam’s take, but that’s ok!

We can definitely act like 20% of total distance on the ground is NOT a problem. That's fine.

BINGO. But hey, what’s 20% between friends.

 

[G-Man]

Fire and Bourbon Friday night?! seems like a good way to listen and is becoming a moment of destressing for the week.

 

[blueonblack]

I was using it as a "pros could get used to a different ball" argument, but if we want to talk varied playing playing fields, baseball is like that.

There's a reason aluminum bats aren't allowed on the pro level. If they were, Fenway Park and the right field at Yankee Stadium would give up who knows how many home runs a game. Hell, someone might even hit one out at Citi Field.

As a former 3rd baseman, this is one half of a aluminum bats argument.
The other is the pitcher or infielders having to be carted off the field every night after line drives.
"Fore!"

 

[blueonblack]

You guys love your stats, and even when I post them to show very modest gains in distance over the decades as @JB is referencing, it falls on deaf ears.

The guys testing the gear here are literally telling you that there has not been enough increase in distances with clubs to merit tearing apart or invalidating courses.
This is especially true with amateur players.

There are agendas involved with this yet-again renewed "distance" debate, and unfortunately, they do not end up benefitting the average golfer.

 

[baylrballa]

The Aluminum bat isn't allowed in MLB because of safety.

Not totally true, they could deaden bats more. They have in college baseball. (College baseball only uses aluminum due to cost of wood bats being prohibitive for most programs)

 

[wadesworld]

What will be interesting about this experiment is what happens should Bryson be unable to sustain it.

If his body starts breaking down, will he be able to go back to a smooth, controlled swing? Or will he stand over every tee ball thinking he can get a bit more out of it and struggle with consistency as a result?

 

[PapaJohick]

I don't want golf courses to turn into the equivalent of caddyshack two with clown carts, and wind mills. Where we have bunkers in the middle of fairways, forced layups. ETC..

Whoah. Centerline bunkering is an awesome design feature in course architecture imo haha. The rest, ok.

 

[PapaJohick]

A lot of what I was going to add has been discussed already, but I still don’t see changing equipment for pros being that big a deal. Bifurcate the game equipment wise. I’m no genius in terms of sales numbers and what not, but @JB would that actually cause an issue sales wise for companies? I mean golfers like the fine people here and other forums would know the difference but half of them already think buying off the rack stuff is nonsense anyways and only look for tour issue/spec or like here, they know to get fit
The majority of consumers (the ones you and dan keep referring to would be hurt by this) wouldn’t know what the hell was going on.

A lot of these people I pair up with in the wild could probably tell you what company the bigger players are staff members of, but if I say what ball or driver or wedge they are playing, literally less than 10% would actually know anything besides prov1 and just saying the newest driver that’s out.

OEMs already spend a ton of money on making one offs, make the equipment regulated for them internally but keep the looks, majority of the consumers buying product have no idea. Unless I’m just in a shell haha.

Literally had a guy try to tell me tiger must love playing his prov1 again (which we all know he never played a prov 1 ever) and that Bridgestone was a just a small company trying to make a buck besides their tire sales.

 

[ntanygd760]

They already do grow the grass. So where do you cut the line? What about top notch college players? Mini tours? LPGA?

Simple way is if the tournament would cause someone to lose am status that event would require the limited ball.

 

[BigMac]

A lot of what I was going to add has been discussed already, but I still don’t see changing equipment for pros being that big a deal. Bifurcate the game equipment wise. I’m no genius in terms of sales numbers and what not, but @JB would that actually cause an issue sales wise for companies? I mean golfers like the fine people here and other forums would know the difference but half of them already think buying off the rack stuff is nonsense anyways and only look for tour issue/spec or like here, they know to get fit
The majority of consumers (the ones you and dan keep referring to would be hurt by this) wouldn’t know what the hell was going on.

A lot of these people I pair up with in the wild could probably tell you what company the bigger players are staff members of, but if I say what ball or driver or wedge they are playing, literally less than 10% would actually know anything besides prov1 and just saying the newest driver that’s out.

OEMs already spend a ton of money on making one offs, make the equipment regulated for them internally but keep the looks, majority of the consumers buying product have no idea. Unless I’m just in a shell haha.

Literally had a guy try to tell me tiger must love playing his prov1 again (which we all know he never played a prov 1 ever) and that Bridgestone was a just a small company trying to make a buck besides their tire sales.

I play a lot of golf, watch a lot of golf, and spend a lot of time here on the forum. I'd be hard pressed to tell you which pros are on staff for which OEM - clubs, balls or otherwise. If there was a quiz listing 20 pros, I'd venture to guess that I'd get maybe 3 or 4 of them right (hello Pat Perez, Bubba, Bryson and Phil, off the top of my head). As far as balls, I'd guess ProV1 for all of them and probably be 90% right, since Titleist seems to sponsor anybody and everybody who'll play their ball just so they can say they're the most played ball on Tour.

I don't pay a lot of attention to Tour WITBs, and I don't base my buying decisions off what pro is playing what gear. I'm not a pro, we're not playing the same game, and what we buy in the stores isn't what they're playing anyway, for the most part. I'm an old guy who isn't very good at golf, and I can use all the distance and forgiveness I can get. I don't have the talent, strength, speed or coordination to hit butter knives with sweet spots the size of a pinhead and shafts stiffer than rebar.

Bifurcate the equipment - the OEMs could market a Pro line and an Amateur line. People who are bound and determined to play whatever their heroes are playing could buy the pro stuff, with the full knowledge that they're not going to hit it as far and/or have as much control. The rest of us who aren't trying to pretend we're Tour players and don't want to deal with that can buy stuff from the Amateur line, where distance and forgiveness are still emphasized/improved. That's actually not too different from how they already market clubs, so not a huge change. The biggest change would be for the ball manufacturers, and as long as they clearly state that their "Pro" balls are reduced flight and control, people already know what they're getting before they plunk their money down so there's no surprises. Maybe they could put a Circle T on them and label them "Tour Use Only" - it might even drive sales for them (hi Scotty!).

 

[PapaJohick]

I play a lot of golf, watch a lot of golf, and spend a lot of time here on the forum. I'd be hard pressed to tell you which pros are on staff for which OEM - clubs, balls or otherwise. If there was a quiz listing 20 pros, I'd venture to guess that I'd get maybe 3 or 4 of them right (hello Pat Perez, Bubba, Bryson and Phil, off the top of my head). As far as balls, I'd guess ProV1 for all of them and probably be 90% right, since Titleist seems to sponsor anybody and everybody who'll play their ball just so they can say they're the most played ball on Tour.

I don't pay a lot of attention to Tour WITBs, and I don't base my buying decisions off what pro is playing what gear. I'm not a pro, we're not playing the same game, and what we buy in the stores isn't what they're playing anyway, for the most part. I'm an old guy who isn't very good at golf, and I can use all the distance and forgiveness I can get. I don't have the talent, strength, speed or coordination to hit butter knives with sweet spots the size of a pinhead and shafts stiffer than rebar.

Bifurcate the equipment - the OEMs could market a Pro line and an Amateur line. People who are bound and determined to play whatever their heroes are playing could buy the pro stuff, with the full knowledge that they're not going to hit it as far and/or have as much control. The rest of us who aren't trying to pretend we're Tour players and don't want to deal with that can buy stuff from the Amateur line, where distance and forgiveness are still emphasized/improved. That's actually not too different from how they already market clubs, so not a huge change. The biggest change would be for the ball manufacturers, and as long as they clearly state that their "Pro" balls are reduced flight and control, people already know what they're getting before they plunk their money down so there's no surprises. Maybe they could put a Circle T on them and label them "Tour Use Only" - it might even drive sales for them (hi Scotty!).

no need to mass produce the standardized equipment. My point is, most consumers wouldn’t evenknow. Also I’m not for flight restricting the ball. I’m for making the pros have to control it better by adding spin off the tee. When they list the witb they can do what they already do anyhow. In terms of drivers and balls most of them are not retail anyways. Digitally lifted and weighted fit their preferences.

 

[DG_1234]

If Tour pros were to start having wedge to every green and, or, routinely shoot 58's that's o.k. , not a problem.