If you didn’t already know, an easy way to get me to rear up on my hind legs is to suggest that the golf ball goes too far and should be rolled back. I walk around in a perpetual state of hypo-mania when it comes to this issue, and am constantly on the lookout to denounce and discredit those preaching heresy on the matter. This past weekend, I was fortunate enough to happen upon an unexpected source of support for what often appears to be my minority opinion. Well, at least I can say I learned some things that make me even more certain that the Pro V1 does not have us on the brink of self-annihilation.
I suspect the typical Sand Trap reader knows all the arguments for rolling back the ball: modern golf has degenerated into bomb and gouge, shotmaking skill doesn’t matter any more, classic courses have become obsolete as Tiger hits sand wedge where Snead and Jones hit 4-iron, course set ups have become ridiculous in an effort to “defend” courses from a technology-fueled game played by increasingly brawny, robotic-swinging touring pros, etc. I’ve happily assaulted (and refuted, I think) each of these arguments, but one for which I haven’t really had a good answer is the one about what the future holds. In other words, maybe things are OK now, but won’t the trend continue? If driving distance has increased 50 yards over the last twenty years, won’t we see 400-yard drives routinely on tour some day? Even I admit you can’t let distance increase indefinitely.
Well, I actually do have a good answer to this issue, but it’s tough to convince people that I’m right about it. I happen to think that technology is basically maxed out in terms of what the clubs and balls can produce in terms of distance. The Overall Distance Standard (ODS) of the USGA has fixed the resiliency of the ball, and other regulations prevent any further increases from club face trampoline effect. The widespread use of launch monitors has squeezed the remaining available yards out of the ball/club collision by helping pros achieve optimum aerodynamics, so really the only frontier remaining is increased strength, speed, timing, and technique – resulting in increased swing speed – from golfers.
But how do you know how strong a typical golfer will be in 30 years? Some argue that just as a 3-minute mile and a host of other track and field records have been consistently blown out of the water year after year, there is potentially no limit to what golfers might one day achieve. This makes sense generally speaking, but I suspect that there must be some sort of limit here as well. Unfortunately, up until recently, I wasn’t really very sure that I could reasonably predict what that limit might be.
One idea I had was that a good estimate of what’s possible for PGA Tour driving distance could be found in looking at Long Drive Tour golfers. Many long drive tour players are as oversized as the shafts in their drivers, often 6’5″ or more and built like NFL linebackers. Since distance is their bread and butter, it’s hard to imagine anyone being more physically optimized as a distance-producing machine than these guys are today. But who knows what these guys really do? OK, you hear about 450 yard drives, but what was the wind? Was it a rock-hard landing area? Were they regulation USGA club specs? I always thought it might be interesting to pick the brain of one of these guys, and see what they thought.
Well, while testing clubs for the Golf Digest Hot List Summit in Mesquite, NV a couple of weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to have the chance to do just that with long drive tour champion Sean “The Beast” Fister and Matt Rudy, his collaborator on an upcoming book entitled “The Long Drive Bible.” Fister, a three-time world long drive champion, was in Mesquite preparing for an upcoming Remax event, while Rudy, a Golf Digest writer and editor, was assisting with the Hot List proceedings. The conversations, some occuring while Fister practiced on the range, were most enlightening.
A few random tidbits… Fister caves in the face of a driver every few days, going through about 200 heads per year. He uses a 48″ shaft and swings a clubhead with four degrees loft. His swing is shorter than you’d expect given the other-worldly distance, and the club face was wide open at the top on the swings I watched. The sound at impact is shockingly loud, such that I had my fingers in my ears for most of the time I watched him hit. Fister is a plus-2 handicapper, and his main swing thought to hit it far is “try not to hit it far” (more on this later).
To get a sense of how long these guys really are, I asked about the difference between, say, Bubba Watson, and a typical long drive tour player. Rudy explained that every once in a while a PGA or Nationwide Tour pro will enter a long drive event, and the consensus is that the longest modern tour pros are about 50 yards shorter, on average, than your typical long drive guy. Fifty yards is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s certainly less than you might think when you hear about some guy belting one 450 to win a long drive event. Just like the fish stories and other forms of hyperbole we get in PGA Tour TV coverage, we probably have an exaggerated sense of how long these guys are. I know it probably sounds stupid to say “these guys aren’t really that long,” when they can hit 7 iron farther than most of us hit driver, but their exploits are still exaggerated to some degree. Anyone who has ever hit a ball 350 yards down a mountain fairway in the Rockies or a 220 yard seven iron on a semi-frozen or baked out muni knows what I’m talking about.
Another interesting issue concerns the specific qualities of the modern ball. I asked Rudy about the so called “BAM core” golf ball phenomenon, the notion that balls like the ProV1 have a high energy core which can only be fully “activated” by golfers with very high swing speeds (over 115-120 MPH clubhead speed). When so activated, the idiotic argument goes, one gets a disproportionately large jump in distance, unavailable to the rest of us weenies who swing like, well, real people. As in, “swing hard enough and, BAM, you get 50 more yards!” Some people who believe in this have extended the illogic to say that a rolled back ball would really only punish the longest hitters, since they are the only ones really getting the full benefit of modern ball technology.
Well I am happy to report that the experience of Fister and other long drive tour guys blows this stupid idea out of the water. On the basis of their own experience, fortified with launch monitor testing and video analysis, many long drive tour guys have learned that not only does increasing swing speed bring incrementally smaller increases in distance (just as this USGA study tells us, covered here), but it is actually possible to reach a swing speed where distance actually levels off or even decreases. That’s right, long drive tour guys take care to avoid swinging too hard.
I want to be 100% sure you folks understand what I just said: there is a point where more club head speed actually produces less distance. A shorter shot. Yes, really.
When I asked why this was so, I expected them to say maybe that the hardest swings tended to result in off-center hits, thus producing less distance by virtue of a less efficient mis-hit. Again, to my surprise, I learned this was not the case. In fact, The Beast and his colleagues have come to learn that, at high enough club head speeds, the golf ball becomes so deformed in the collision that it suffers aerodynamically in the earliest phases of flight, leading to decreased distance. They are literally approaching the point of exploding the golf ball.
What does this mean? It means that even if some seven-foot, four-hundred-pound high school junior qualifies for the tour in 2024, he won’t hit it any further than Sean Fister does today, even if he can swing his driver 200 MPH. And when you factor in that PGA Tour players actually need to hit it to a guarded target – as opposed to the sterile, featureless grid of the long drive tour – and would need to swing 48-inch drivers with four degrees of loft to get the extra 50 or so yards, you become more confident that we are likely very close to the bitter end when it comes to driving distance on the professional tours.
I suppose some of you are unmoved still. Maybe you want the golf equivalent of a miracle, maybe a divot in the shape of Mother Theresa, or the ghostly apparition of Hogan and Fleck floating above a drainage pond at dusk to be pursuaded to renounce your Luddite faith. No problem here, I believe in freedom of religion. Just don’t stage a golf ball-burning at my club, thank you, or go around lying about things like “BAM core” golf balls and spouting nonsense about 400 yard drives as if they will one day be routine. It ain’t gonna happen, folks.
Golf is doing just fine. We’re very, very close to the end of the distance road, and the game is still a challenge, even for the greatest. The Pro V1 and Hex Tour are not demon seed. If our game is threatened, it’s not because of Bubba Watson averaging 308 or whatever the number is. Scott Verplank is a short hitter and one of the top money winners. Corey Pavin won an event in his 40s. The longest bombers aren’t exactly dominating majors, and the greatest player in the world wins majors as much by laying back off the tee as he does by booming drives. Augusta National’s membership can afford to upgrade and lengthen their course.
Oh, and modern technology has made the act of hitting a golf ball a wee bit easier for the 99.9999999% of us who are the heart and soul of the game and don’t qualify for the Open, hasn’t it?
Can we please grow up and put this pedantic, tired debate to bed?
Great post! It’s comforting to know that we aren’t going to need to build 8000 yard courses to keep up with the gain in distance and that the true classics won’t someday become obsolete.
It is always interesting though to play a course that you haven’t played in 10 years and see how the lines you take to play the course have changed, particularly if the property hasn’t moved bunkers or tees in this time period.
Since technology won’t be dramatically impacting the game and the average player isn’t getting in better shape, I think you’ll see an ever widening gap between the average player and great players.
JP: Great post, and great point about the ball deformation at ultra-high swing speeds hurting ball flight and costing distance. This is where high-COR drivers can really aid distance. A more flexible face means that the ball doesn’t deform as much at impact, and the aerodynamics and energy transfer are more efficient. That’s why the USGA/R&A capped the COR, though the laws of physics would have capped it soon enough (hard to mass-produce ultra-flexible driver heads that wouldn’t cave at high swing speeds).
I wonder what would happen if balls were made greater compression, say 150 or 200. They might hold their shape better but the speed needed to compress them to get extra distance might destroy the clubface. Does that sound reasonable??
Compression has almost entirely to do with feel and almost zilch to do with distance. Companies used to market 110 compression balls, and it was a gimmick. Note that even Titleist doesn’t use compression to discern between ball models anymore (remember the Tour Balatas in 90 and 100 compressions?). So a 150 or 200 compression ball would just feel like a range ball that’d been sitting in mud for a few weeks, but wouldn’t mean extra distance. Probably less, because the ball would compress less on the face and not have that high-launch, low-spin trajectory that really adds to distance.
You make a good point about being maxed out for distance, but it begs the question – “are we happy with where we are?”
We may not need to build 8,000 yard courses, but we are building 7,500 yard courses. I don’t know by how much, but I’m sure they use more land, cost more to buy, build and maintain, play and be a member of, and take longer to play than a 5,500 or 6,000 yard course.
If my average drive went from 260 to 220 (and Tiger’s went from 300 to 260), I wouldn’t care one bit, so long as I was playing shorter, cheaper, quicker games of golf.
I’m okay with it, that’s for sure. I’m very happy with where we are.
I’m not, and I would bet most courses being built for the average player do not stretch to 7,500 yards. You’re throwing that out there as if every course is that long. Pacific Dunes doesn’t even reach 7,000, IIRC, and I rarely even play tees that start with a “7” let alone a “75.”
7,500 may be needed to test the world’s best (though I can easily counter with Hoylake, Merion, Pebble Beach, and even Harbour Town) on occasion, but the world’s best is by definition an incredibly small minority. I’ve played Oakland Hills, Oakmont, Bethpage, and a few other courses Tiger and the world’s best have played… from the appropriate tees.
I dare say there are a multitude of ways to play cheaper, quicker games of golf without throwing in “shorter” as well.
I am interested to know who broke the 3 minute mile record!
“Some argue that just as a 3-minute mile and a host of other track and field records have been consistently blown out of the water year after year, there is potentially no limit to what golfers might one day……”
Good article otherwise!
… using more land, water and money than if courses were shorter? Are you taking issue with the factual correctness of the post or whether longer courses might not be so good for the reasons I stated.
… I know you don’t build golf courses and you may win that bet, but 7500 yard courses are being built and have been built, regardless of how long Pacific Dunes is. Also, they don’t seem to be places that are going to host a PGA tour event next year. I never said every new course is that long.
… the post was not about what is needed to test the best players, where you’ve played, the length of any existing famous golf courses, or what tees you should play from. The point is that the distance the ball goes these days is influencing “some” people to build 7500 yard golf courses, or possibly better to say longer courses in general – and whether THAT is a good thing? If you are disputing whether or not there are any 7500 yard courses being built, I’ll rephrase the spirit of the post – are new courses built these days longer than they were 20 or 40 or 60 years ago? If they are, does it matter?
First off, I said I was happy with where we are relative to the ball, technology, and distance. The courses I play do not use “more land, water, and money.” Just this year I joined a course that – from the tips – plays to a par of 72 from under 6800 yards. My other home course is likewise 72/6800 or so.
You’re throwing catch phrases out there as if they’re concrete fact, and they’re not. The number of courses being built for PGA Tour players – courses that are “using more land, water, and money” – are incredibly small.
And frankly, I don’t care about “more land, water, and money” – better a golf course than a strip mall, regulations control water, and it’s not my money.
What facts? In your comment or the article itself? I haven’t seen any facts coming from you. You’re just assuming several things to be true. I just played Tobacco Road recently – from the “tips” (6554 yards!!!), and I was happy to play in “only” five hours. Course length is a very small factor in the length of time a round takes.
Some other basic “facts,” from my perspective:
And I’m saying the 7500 yard courses are not being built at the rate you seem to believe is common. Most courses these days are being built to about 7000 yards, just as they were 10 years ago. The fact that some high-profile courses top out at 6700 or 6800 should be pleasing to you. For every Erin Hills there’s at least one Pacific Dunes (or three, in the case of Bandon).
If that’s the point you’re trying to make, then not only have you failed, but you’re quite a bit off-topic and you’ve yet to respond to JP’s original post very much at all.
People hit the ball further these days than they did 60 years ago. Obviously some courses are being built longer, and the average course is longer today.
Does it matter? Clearly I do not believe it does. I don’t think distance has gotten away from us and made the game any less fun and I don’t think distance can be “blamed” for much of anything.
Not to get even farther from the original topic of the post, but the “new courses are too big and waste too many resources” argument is moot. Why? New course construction in the US is at a halt. The number of courses in the country is actually down slightly over the last few years because new projects have stalled (insert your own commentary about the state of the economy) and several existing courses have closed (more valuable as real estate, supply being greater than demand, etc).
Are a small cluster of courses that host tour events getting longer? Yes. Are a small cluster of courses that want to promote themselves as tour-level facilities quoting 7,500-plus yardages from the tips? Sure. But the overwhelming majority of courses, and the majority of golfers playing them, are not having problems because the courses are too short. Two of my favorite new courses (in the last 10 years) in Northern Michigan each play less than 6,400 yards from the tips, and are plenty challenging to anyone not carrying a tour card.
And one other thought: Adding 100 yards to a golf hole doesn’t mean adding 100 yards of fairway that needs to be heavily watered and fertilized. Many courses with ultra-long yardages from the tips just have an extra tee box well back of everything else – it isn’t as if they’re extending the fairways closer to the tees (quite the opposite, sometimes). A 7,500-yard course doesn’t have to have a larger footprint than a 6,800-yard course if done right…
Some responses from the author:
Ken: You’re right, I should have said “4 minute mile”…but I guess in my mind the sub-4 minute mile is thought of as the “3 minute mile.”
Mark: I know you’re replying to Erik’s reactions to your comments, but FWIW–I think you are both right. I think there certainly are more golf courses being built anew today or redesigned today that are very long. I don’t know percentages, but would imagine “most” courses probably aren’t built to ultra-long distances. I am sure where it happens it is because developers want to say they are building a “Championship” course, so as to make the project appear more attractive to investors, real estate buyers, etc. I would also guess that the number of such courses which are actually used as Championship venues is probably minimal, but I don’t really know.
But I also am sure that there are many new courses or courses recently built – probably “most” – and naturally the vast majority of existing courses, that are of “normal” length and are not pushovers for golfers.
Don’s point that “shortness” is absolutely zero impediment for challenge and enjoyment for virtually all golfers other than competitive, high level amateurs and pros is correct, I think.
Also, something that’s hardly ever mentioned, is that isn’t it really more enjoyable for almost all of us to shoot, say 88, rather than 102? I mean, isn’t it a _good_ thing that the course we played 20 years ago with the old equipment now “plays” 300yards shorter? Isn’t it more fun for us, as a recreational pursuit?
One of the things that I can never understand about this debate is that we have a group of people who, on the one hand complain about distance and there not being enough “challenge” in the game, yet on the other hand object vehemently to rough and course set up that makes the game more difficult. They want to butter their bread on both sides, and they want to choose the type of bread and brand of butter for all of us. They want to tell us the way the game “should” be played, and how far all of us should be able to hit the ball.
As a general rule, I would much rather see golf courses play shorter and easier, and, when necessary, tricked up for added challenge, rather than pursue some golf snob/dilletante’s idealized notion of a golf course and the “proper” equipment for play.
Personally, I like the fact that even as a mediocre golfer, I can play many of the holes on my home course with a driver and short iron. Does it mean the game is easy and technology has made me a 2 hcp? Of course not. I still hit the ball out of bounds and fat it and miss short putts and blade bunker shots. But the prospect of playing golf the rest of my life with constant distance pressure on my game is something I’d perceive as suffocatingly depressing. For me, the balance of modern equipment with a golf course playing to a distance of about 63-6400 yards from standard “white” tees is fantastic. Of course everyone will have their own opinion, but the fact is for most of us, courses haven’t lengthened significantly in the last 20 years, but if we use good modern equipment, we can all hit the ball a little longer.
The point about the cost/impact of 700 added yards by Don is excellent. The cost argument is one of a litany of “straw man” arguments, for which there are really no factual basis, that are used to attack technology.
Long drivers events are so bad taste, its like golf meets monster trucks.
Good thing this article isn’t really about long drive events!
Mark:
Even if it’s true that “some” are building 7500+ courses, and they’re doing it because they fear that equipment gains will overpower their courses, they shouldn’t. If we can change this faulty perception, we’ll change the behavior, and JP’s excellent article is a step in that direction. We can’t stop people from doing dumb things, but perhaps we can stop them from spreading the virus.
I can tell you from first hand experience in serious competition that trying to hit it harder doesn’t help. I’m 48 years old and qualified for the US Amateur Pub Linx. My playing partners were two collegiate golfers who could just kill the golf ball. The course we played measured out at just at 7100 yards. While there were tee shots that they each hit further than I did on some holes, my local knowledge of just WHERE to put the tee shot made a huge difference and on a number of holes, all three of us were dead even off the tee. What helped me WAS the golf ball. I played a Pro V1 and purposely avoided trying to kill it but focused on hitting it in the center of the clubface. Example. The 11th hole was a 471 yard par 4. I knew I couldn’t hit it 300 yards but I could hit it 250 to the top of a little hill that gave me a great look at the green and I knew I could hit my #2 hybrid at least to the fringe. One of the other guys, trying to clear the hill and catch a bit of roll, hit two in the water off the tee; the other trying to do the same thing, hit it out of bounds. I was in the middle of the fairway, then on the fringe, then 2 feet from the cup. Yes, I made the two footer and walked on. I think Jim McClean has it down……we want center hits, higher on the face. Per Bobby Clampett, tee it LOWER and hit DOWN on it not up…..make the club bottom out four inches in front of the ball………..you’ll hit it FAR. even if you’re an old man like me!!