USGA/R&A Distance Insights Project (Updated Feb. 2021)

[GolfLug]

21 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

This is not the topic of this thread.  

Yes, I know I acknowledged that in the first sentence of the post. I will butt out but thought this was more of an impactful aspect than distance. 

Anyway I have nothing to add to the distance debate. Don't think there is enough to address. 

33 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

rthe marketing on MOI is overblown; miss the ball out of the middle and not control face to path very well and you still get punished for it.  Face to path isn't going to be overruled by MOI--you might keep more ball speed, but that will just send your ball even further offline.

I won't harp on this but I have spent a lifetime optimizing, NVH, directional and structural forces of dynamic engine components and environments so I can tell you you are a bit off on 'no effect' statement.

There is an effect of MOI on face-path-direction correction. In simpler terms gear effect is not eliminated by any means but is reduced. 

Anyway, no need to respond unless you want to. 

[ncates00]

2 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

'no effect' statement.

I didn't say this.  I said MOI isn't going to overrule strike or face to path.  Strike is king at the end of the day.

 

3 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

not eliminated by any means but is reduced. 

Fair enough, but no amount of marketing or technology is going to fix a player's poor striking or face to path issues. 

Nonetheless, golf equipment advances are merely a natural progression; it takes place in all markets.  My 65 mustang was nice, but it doesn't drive like a new one and wasn't as safe either.  But golf club advancements are hardly as potent as what has happened to vehicles. 

Another point I would bring up is--well at what point were you satisfied with the level of "being punished" due to mis-hits?  This kind of argument leads to pointless line-drawing and notions of nostalgia.  Again, you still have to game your ball--I don't care what kind of "jailbreak" technology, cavity backs, and chunky clubs are in your bag.  Does it make it a little easier--sure.  But golf is still a skill game and one where we want people to come play and enjoy--not to mention speeding up the pace of the game a bit. 

I'm for keeping courses shorter and keeping equipment capped where it is.  I don't care about "preserving par" or anything like that--par is a useless notion in competition anyway; all that matters is the total score relative to the competition at the end of the day.  I don't care if a guy shoots -30 or +3--it's about what did you do relative to the competition.

 

[GolfLug]

@ncates00, I think all of your points are good  but then why would you not apply the same thought process to distance as well? You have elevated, rightfully so, the skill aspect of golf many times so a bit surprised you would want to limit distance. I think it is well established that distance is primarily and overwhelmingly, I might add, a skill. 

Rolling back seems to effect only top distance achievers. Doesn't seem fair.

Edited February 17, 2020 by GolfLug

[iacas]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

Allow me to digress for a moment a bit but  what I think is relatively more unfair is there is not enough penalty for hitting off center. There is too much tech that has increased MOI (stable impact) for relatively hitting off center and less than square face to path relationship. 

V, players on the Tour aren’t relying on the MOI. They’re not missing the center very often.

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Makes sense.  I didn't know if some engineer somewhere could figure it out, but it sounds like it's not possible.  On paper, even if not actually viable, it was a good idea to address distance at the top level without affecting ams like me and without messing with bifurcation or driver heads.  But like you said, it's likely not even possible.

Something that physically can’t be accomplished is a good idea? I don’t get that.

[ncates00]

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

distance

I agree it is a skill. However, based upon the USGA and R&A report, assuming its veracity, the skill of distance has swallowed up the other skills to a large degree. Distance has encroached upon the other skills, the argument goes, to the point that bomb and gouge is the way to go. After all, distance leads to shorter clubs in, closer proximity to the hole, and more putts made—lower scores. They argue that there needs to be a readjustment to the importance of all the skills and the only way to do it is to temper distance. You could arguably do this via course setup and pinching in the fairways even more perhaps. However, unless the rough/obstacles are especially penal, it’s better to hit a wedge from the rough than a short to medium iron from the fairway in most cases. 

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

V, players on the Tour aren’t relying on the MOI. They’re not missing the center very often.

Something that physically can’t be accomplished is a good idea? I don’t get that.

Your point is merely going in circles. For the purposes of the argument, I assumed that it could be possible. This happens all the time in logical discussion—it’s called arguendo; it’s used often for thought experiments/discussion and in legal reasoning as well  

 Of course, I agree with you that if it’s not possible then it’s not a good idea. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. I’ve only talked about this further because others have replied to it. See discussion above. 

[phillyk]

13 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

You could arguably do this via course setup and pinching in the fairways even more perhaps. 

Bomb and gouge won't go away with this.  Isn't the point of bomb and gouge already admitting not needing to hit fairways.  It has always been an advantage to hit bigger drives, even long ago; there just weren't any real stats to prove that up to 2011 (strokes gained) or so. 

One guy on golf channel made a good point about being a bomber and being on the leader board. It's usually the guys bombing it and hitting fairways that appear there.  Bomb and gouge guys are further down.  No matter what they propose, distance will continue to be of the importance it already is.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, ncates00 said:

I agree it is a skill. However, based upon the USGA and R&A report, assuming its veracity, the skill of distance has swallowed up the other skills to a large degree.

It has not.

2 hours ago, ncates00 said:

Your point is merely going in circles.

No, I’m simply astounded that you continue to talk about something that’s physically impossible. It’s pointless. And even if you could do it it would be incredibly unfair. Total non-starter.

[JustForeFun]

On 2/4/2020 at 12:18 PM, DeadMan said:

Pulled this from the report, and I think it's the most important chart in the whole report:

Male amateurs have since a 16 yard increase from 1996 to 2019. But note how the increase is mostly at high handicap levels. This chart account for at least 80% of golf played. Maybe more.  I really fail to see the problem here.

Having read the entire myself, I entirely agree with your observation. Good job!

[cutchemist42]

50 minutes ago, JustForeFun said:

Having read the entire myself, I entirely agree with your observation. Good job!

I've been thinking about this chart more after reading opinions at golfwrx on that specific part.

Lots there really second guessing how it was truly measured and what age group brackets are there amongst that.

I mean maybe it's just my age group and friends but as mid 30s mostly everyone I play with are in the 240s despite a wide range of handicaps. Our group does have a lot of guys that go hard at the ball so they arent hitting a lot of fairways. Younger golfwrxers than my age group definitely feel the younger kids across those handicap levels are easily above the levels mentioned.

 

[DeadMan]

36 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

I've been thinking about this chart more after reading opinions at golfwrx on that specific part.

Lots there really second guessing how it was truly measured and what age group brackets are there amongst that.

I mean maybe it's just my age group and friends but as mid 30s mostly everyone I play with are in the 240s despite a wide range of handicaps. Our group does have a lot of guys that go hard at the ball so they arent hitting a lot of fairways. Younger golfwrxers than my age group definitely feel the younger kids across those handicap levels are easily above the levels mentioned.

It’s not the best data, but it’s what we have. I think the distances are fairly accurate. 240 is a long drive for anyone without a single digit or below handicap. I wouldn’t read too much into each year’s data. 

[MiuraMan]

On 2/16/2020 at 9:15 PM, iacas said:

It would be categorically unfair.

No, it doesn't. Approach shot play still matters the most, and the players who drive it the farthest actually have a tougher time gaining strokes on approach shots because they have shorter approach shots.

And, really, I don't think the physics of that would really work at all.

I think Adam Scott's win at the Genesis Invitational illustrates Eric'c point  -  "Strokes gained - Approach" matters.

[iacas]

@ncates00, driving distance correlates to success only a little more than it did in 1984.

Quote

1. The raw correlation between a golfer’s average driving distance and their total strokes-gained has increased slightly since 1984. Conversely, the raw correlation between driving accuracy and total strokes-gained has steadily declined since 1984; this decline has flattened out since 2004. This is consistent with work done by Jake Nichols. Overall, it's fairly striking how little the raw correlation between distance and performance has changed since 1984.  

Importance of Driving Distance

---

Analyzing performance trends from 1984-2019.

Furthermore, on the PGA Tour, the rough is still about a 70-yard penalty when you look at the resulting approach shot.

[ncates00]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

@ncates00, driving distance correlates to success only a little more than it did in 1984.

Importance of Driving Distance

---

Analyzing performance trends from 1984-2019.

Furthermore, on the PGA Tour, the rough is still about a 70-yard penalty when you look at the resulting approach shot.

Nice.  I concede the point, assuming the veracity of the data.

[Typhoon92]

I used to watch NASCAR back in the Jeff Gordon days.  You qualified for a position, you started there and then raced the 500 laps and then there was prize money.

 Since then with points for this, points for that, changing the Daytona 500, I’ve stopped watching.  I saw the last 10 laps last night where it seemed nobody could drive a half lap without a crash trying to garner points.

I can’t help but see the day where in golf is you hit your tee shot 300 yards the par on that hole for that player becomes 3.5 instead of 4.   I can see people losing interest.

[billchao]

2 minutes ago, Typhoon92 said:

I used to watch NASCAR back in the Jeff Gordon days.  You qualified for a position, you started there and then raced the 500 laps and then there was prize money.

 Since then with points for this, points for that, changing the Daytona 500, I’ve stopped watching.  I saw the last 10 laps last night where it seemed nobody could drive a half lap without a crash trying to garner points.

I can’t help but see the day where in golf is you hit your tee shot 300 yards the par on that hole for that player becomes 3.5 instead of 4.   I can see people losing interest.

I’m having a hard time following. What does a golf have to do with NASCAR? What does par have to do with anything?

[Typhoon92]

26 minutes ago, billchao said:

I’m having a hard time following. What does a golf have to do with NASCAR? What does par have to do with anything?

I look at how they have changed Nascar and for me it’s less enjoyable.

 

Golf, penalize you with if you can play a par 4 and your drive in under 300 yards it’s a par 4.  If you hit one 310 you get penalized for distance by having the hole a par 3.5.  So if you hit it 310 and make a 4, your are a half stroke over par.

 

Sounds stupid right?  So is NASCAR... leave them both alone.

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Typhoon92 said:

I look at how they have changed Nascar and for me it’s less enjoyable.

Golf, penalize you with if you can play a par 4 and your drive in under 300 yards it’s a par 4.  If you hit one 310 you get penalized for distance by having the hole a par 3.5.  So if you hit it 310 and make a 4, your are a half stroke over par.

Sounds stupid right?  So is NASCAR... leave them both alone.

Nobody is proposing any such thing, nor would they ever.

Your posts don't make any sense.

[Typhoon92]

I know they haven’t proposed anything but they are talking about the distance problem and doing something about it.

Never say never either, back in the late 1960’s did any of us think basketball would have a 3 point line?

Edited February 18, 2020 by Typhoon92
Spelling