We've launched the new forums! Read more here

NEWS The USGA Distance Insights Project

Dr. Double said:
I don't remember the last time I saw a pro hit anything longer than a 7 iron into a green unless it was a par 5. Are you seeing a lot of long and mid-irons into greens?
Click to expand...

Have you watched the LPGA? They hit 7 irons, 5 irons, and some hybrids at times.
 
InTheRough said:
Have you watched the LPGA? They hit 7 irons, 5 irons, and some hybrids at times.
Click to expand...
I apologize, I should have specified a pro on the men's tour. Personally I am a huge fan of the LPGA and the club/shot making variety.
 
Dr. Double said:
I don't remember the last time I saw a pro hit anything longer than a 7 iron into a green unless it was a par 5. Are you seeing a lot of long and mid-irons into greens?
Click to expand...

A lot of approach shots are hit with mid or short irons but it's really about how close they hit it to the hole because the average make percentage for putts over 25' on tour is only 6.48%. If you don't hit it close your not making many birdies and it's damn tough to hit it close even for the best in the world.

I think your average golfer overestimates how close PGA Tour pros hit it to the hole.

The stats from 2019 PGA Tour season:

Rod Pampling led the tour for proximity from 100-125 at 15'8" and the average was almost 20 feet.

Best proximity to the hole from the fairway - 32'6"(average is 36')
Best proximity to the hole from the rough - 37' (average is 44')

Best scoring average was Justin Thomas at 68.99 and Tour average is 70.28.

BTW 15 years ago when the agronomy was less advanced and course conditions(especially greens) were on average worse the scoring average was 69.11(Tiger) and 70.99 and a decade ago it was 69.43 and 70.59.

My conclusion: Golf is hard and old man par is safe.:)
 
tahoebum said:
A lot of approach shots are hit with mid or short irons but it's really about how close they hit it to the hole because the average make percentage for putts over 25' on tour is only 6.48%. If you don't hit it close your not making many birdies and it's damn tough to hit it close even for the best in the world.

I think your average golfer overestimates how close PGA Tour pros hit it to the hole.

The stats from 2019 PGA Tour season:

Best proximity to the hole from the fairway - 32'6"(average is 36')
Best proximity to the hole from the rough - 37' (average is 44')

Best scoring average is Justin Thomas at 68.99 and average is 70.28.

BTW 15 years ago when the agronomy was less advanced and course conditions(especially greens) were on average worse the scoring average was 69.11(Tiger) and 70.99 and a decade ago it was 69.43 and 70.59.

My conclusion: Golf is hard and old man par is safe.:)
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Golf is incredibly hard ha.
 
Dr. Double said:
Well first of all muscles don't equal athleticism. Have you seen bodybuilders try and throw a football? It's laughable. Athleticism is, as you mentioned, "finesse, timing, execution, lag, fluidity, etc etc" and being able to do them at an incredible rate of speed. Its basic physiology. The older you are (most of the time) the slower your body works (most of the time). Bodies atrophy, that's what they do. We as human beings breakdown and become slower and more fragile. That's why athletes peak when they do.

I want to refer back to my Fred Couples example. He is hitting it farther now than he did in his twenties. His swing looks exactly the same, his body looks exactly the same. The only variable that has changed is his age. Unless you can point to something I have totally missed in regards to a new workout regiment or a dynamic swing change, the only variable that has changed in his game is the equipment. He is hitting the ball farther because of the equipment and ball he is using, not because he all of the sudden became stronger and better at golf.
Click to expand...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree with this one. I've got a lot of confidence that Couples' efficiency and understanding of the mechanics of the swing has dramatically improved. Now it's not to say that i don't think equipment has helped - it surely has during the course of his career - but I do think he's done more than just be stagnant in how he has adapted to the game from a swing perspective. I'd argue it is a solid combination of them both.

He's also a total anomaly. There's absolutely no one out there like him... and I love it.
 
tahoebum said:
@BubbaWatson

I bet he can't do more than two pull-ups or 25 push-ups. Hit's a cut off the tee and is longer than Rory, lol.
Click to expand...
Bubba is nice 'freak of nature' sample. Nothing even remotely orthodox about him, but he uses all of it just about every time haha
 
Canadan said:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree with this one. I've got a lot of confidence that Couples' efficiency and understanding of the mechanics of the swing has dramatically improved. Now it's not to say that i don't think equipment has helped - it surely has during the course of his career - but I do think he's done more than just be stagnant in how he has adapted to the game from a swing perspective. I'd argue it is a solid combination of them both.

He's also a total anomaly. There's absolutely no one out there like him... and I love it.
Click to expand...
Fred Couples defines the adage" Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" when it comes to the golf swing!
 
Turtlerancher said:
Fred Couples defines the adage" Slow is smooth, smooth is fast" when it comes to the golf swing!
Click to expand...
Him, Ernie Els... They made it work for a LONG time based purely on technique.

That said, neither of them are anywhere close to needing a roll back of product.
 
#rollbackthecourse FTW!?
 
Canadan said:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree with this one. I've got a lot of confidence that Couples' efficiency and understanding of the mechanics of the swing has dramatically improved. Now it's not to say that i don't think equipment has helped - it surely has during the course of his career - but I do think he's done more than just be stagnant in how he has adapted to the game from a swing perspective. I'd argue it is a solid combination of them both.

He's also a total anomaly. There's absolutely no one out there like him... and I love it.
Click to expand...
Totally fair to agree to disagree. Hope there are no hard feelings! I just enjoy the debate. Great points on both sides for sure. I also can't argue that Couples is a phenom, he is absolutely incredible.
 
And here is why growing the grass out is a bad idea. Firm and fast makes courses difficult and fair for every type of player to compete. Growing grass out in the fairway will certainly make a 280 yard drive stop quickly, but firm and fast means it could roll into the gnarly rough or a bunker if it's not on a perfect line. Riviera is a classic example of how a course should play on tour. Yes drives can go 330 on a roll out, but the lines for that to work are tiny and should be rewarded if the player finds them. The vast majority of these shots are ending up in Kikuya rough though. Those shots get a bogey while the other shots set up a birdie chance. Contrast that with some of the setups we see where the fairways are overseeded and slow and the rough is lame and then it's a bomb and gouge paradise. There is no bombing and gouging going on this week. The players love it too.

https://www.golf.com/news/2020/02/16/riviera-country-club-produces-another-great-tournament/
 


Crossfield can be hit or miss for me, but I must say, I agree with a lot of his take here. It's also interesting that he mentions his match with Westwood. Sort of look at a tournament is golfer vs. golfer, not golfer vs. par (the course), which the USGA seems to focus on too much.
 
Golf Ghost said:


Crossfield can be hit or miss for me, but I must say, I agree with a lot of his take here. It's also interesting that he mentions his match with Westwood. Sort of look at a tournament is golfer vs. golfer, not golfer vs. par (the course), which the USGA seems to focus on too much.
Click to expand...

Wow.. Something I agree with Crossfield on.. What is this world coming to!
 
LICC said:
What about the millions who enjoy watching those few hundred elite players?
Click to expand...
They can enjoy watching those players trying to break sixty.

My opinion, obviously, will reflect my own view of golf, which is that its primary importance is as a recreational game more that as sports entertainment.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
They can enjoy watching those players trying to break sixty.

My opinion, obviously, will reflect my own view of golf, which is that its primary importance is as a recreational game more that as sports entertainment.
Click to expand...
PGA Tour golf is sports entertainment. That is not a matter of opinion, it just states what it is.
 
LICC said:
PGA Tour golf is sports entertainment. That is not a matter of opinion, it just states what it is.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. That's definitely what it is,
so if that's what you prioritize, you might have one opinion,
and if you couldn't care less about the tour but enjoy golf as recreation, you might have a different opinion.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
I totally agree. That's definitely what it is,
so if that's what you prioritize, you might have one opinion,
and if you couldn't care less about the tour but enjoy golf as recreation, you might have a different opinion.
Click to expand...
You do understand that bifurcation means changes would only apply to the pro golfers?
 
LICC said:
You do understand that bifurcation means changes would only apply to the pro golfers?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understwand that. I don't think that it's necessary. I don't care if the top ten are breaking sixty at Augusta and St. Andrews.
The members and guests are not, so the courses are not being obsoleted.

Again, just my opinion.
 
RetiredBoomer said:
Yes, I understwand that. I don't think that it's necessary. I don't care if the top ten are breaking sixty at Augusta and St. Andrews.
The members and guests are not, so the courses are not being obsoleted.

Again, just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Since you don't care, then I assume you are not against bifurcation.
 
LICC said:
Since you don't care, then I assume you are not against bifurcation.
Click to expand...

I am against it because from my point of view, the USGA and the R&A shouldn't be worrying about the pros at all. They should be concerned mainly with us. The Pro Tours are there to worry about pro golf, and if they want to implement separate rules from the USGA and R&A,, let them.

That's just my opinion which will, of course, have no impact on what's actually done
 
I have said several times the focus of score in relation to par obscures the improvement equipment has made. If the average winning score at Augusta is -20 now and it used to be -10 people tend to think golfer twice as good, but that is not the case. If par is 72. A -10 represents a score of 268 over 4 days. A score of -20 represents a score of 258 over 4 days. That 10 stroke difference is actually only a 3.7% difference because 10 strokes is 3.7% of 268.
 
LICC said:
You do understand that bifurcation means changes would only apply to the pro golfers?
Click to expand...
Would it? What do you do with high school and college players? What equipment do they play or do they have to play two different sets? What about the 46 year old HR manager who likes to try and qualify for state and USGA events? Does that person now need one set for tournaments and one for matches at the club to not be at a disadvantage in club matches? Golf is already expensive enough. Is creating extra cost for certain groups of players?



Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
LICC said:
You do understand that bifurcation means changes would only apply to the pro golfers?
Click to expand...

Actually that would depend on how the bifurcation rules are written. If an amateur attempts to qualify for the US Open, then would the bifurcation rules apply to them? Probably so. What about the US Amateur and regionals.

If it is as you suggest, only for pro golfers then an amateur playing in a pro event would be deemed to have an unfair advantage. So in my mind it wouldn’t only apply to pros, but upper level amateurs as well. If that be the case, where is the line drawn.

If it’s a PGA adoption, then are the four majors excluded from those bifurcation rules since they are not PGA Tour sponsored events?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
RetiredBoomer said:
I am against it because from my point of view, the USGA and the R&A shouldn't be worrying about the pros at all. They should be concerned mainly with us. The Pro Tours are there to worry about pro golf, and if they want to implement separate rules from the USGA and R&A,, let them.

That's just my opinion which will, of course, have no impact on what's actually done
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing the logic in your posts. If they bifurcate rules that only apply to pro tournaments, and you don't care at all about pro tournaments, then why would you take a position against it? Because you think the USGA would be distracted from making better rules for amateurs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top