Nicklaus suggests a 20% rollback in driving distance

[Mordan]

So I'd be losing 20+ yards while others would only be losing 7 (The number you were looking for was about 186.67 yards so it would be 13, but still). That mystifies me that anyone considers that fair. I should get every inch of my distance advantage unless you're also giving me 6 footers. Do we give point guards in the NBA stilts so they can avoid getting blocked by centers? I say we long hitters have always existed, and always followed the rules to do so. If I wasn't as long a hitter as I am, I don't know how I could ever play really good golf. It's unfair to force me to become a phenomenal player within 100 yards just to keep my current ability level, let alone improve. If there's a single course or tournament where they want to change the ball, I'd understand, but Nicklaus wants us to return to pre 1960 distances? Ego, pure and simple, on the part of the course designers.

The whole point of Jack's suggestion of a 20% reduction is not to disadvantage long hitters. Currently as a long hitter you might play a 380 yard par 4 by hitting a 280 yard drive and a 100 yard sand wedge. A short hitter will play that hole with a 210 yard drive and a 170 yard 5 wood. The equivalent hole then becomes a 340 yard par 4 where you hit a 250 yard drive followed by a 90 yard gap wedge and your short hitting buddy hits a 190 yard drive and a 160 yard 3 wood. With reduced lengths a 380 yard par 4 means you hit driver followed by a 130 yard 8 iron but your short hitting friend can't get home in 2 and has to lay up. I reckon your friend might be thinking the rule change advantages you not him. The reasoning is to allow the pros to continue playing some older courses where there isn't room to build new tees back far enough to keep the fairway bunkers in play. It would also allow new courses to be built shorter, costing less to build and less to maintain. And shorter courses are faster to play too.

[newtogolf]

Some of the old courses might need to be redesigned because they were initially designed as a long course and by todays standards they aren't a long course and have become too easy to play for the pro's.  It's really cause and effect, the course designers kept designing longer courses and the pro's and golf manufacturers responded by developing their bodies and clubs to compensate for the added distance.

Some of the toughest holes on the Tour aren't the Par 5's but the longer par 4's and 3's.  Setting a course up for pro's should mean there's a higher penalty for missing fairways, more sand, water, thicker rough, etc.  Make a course penal enough on mishits and the pro's will dial themselves back to make sure they go for accuracy over distance.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by dave67az

It's not the golf ball's fault it's going farther, but several factors that cause the ball to go farther.

The golf ball has basically always gone as far as it does now. They've made some improvements to aerodynamics, but a Pinnacle from the 90s is basically what the pros play now, except they've added spin on short game shots.

So the ball goes a little bit farther now, but not a lot. The major advances that affect distance are:

1. Longer, lighter shafts.
2. Bigger clubheads.
3. Player fitness.
4. Optimization of launch conditions.
5. Agronomy (consider how far Keegan's drive rolled the other day)

Most of those make sense, but to 1, 2, and 3 the average clubhead speed on the PGA Tour has grown by almost 13 MPH since the days of small steel shafted drivers. And players - in every sport - tend to get bigger, faster, more athletic.

Players hit their 7-irons farther than they used to as well (and farther than they used to hit 6-irons, if you want to argue that the loft of a modern 7-iron is strong).

If you (anyone) think distance is a problem, then the ball is likely the easiest way to attack it. BUT you first have to prove that distance is a problem .

Originally Posted by dave67az

Obviously Luke List would still have a big advantage over Mike Weir in driving distance, so it's not like you're eliminating any competitive advantage to long hitters.  Right?

We can all crunch the numbers. The point remains anyone who advocates "less distance" needs to prove that distance is a problem.

Originally Posted by dave67az

I don't design courses, but I can see why Jack was a little peeved that Keegan Bradley carried a 317-yard fairway bunker at his course.  317 yard CARRY.  I'd love to know what his swing speed was on that one.  But it's clearly a fluke for him, because (well, until now) he was 7th in driving distance on the tour with an average of 301.9 (carry + roll).

Jack hit the occasional ball - in his time - that carried 300+. And yes, it's a fluke. Everyone here has ripped one (then immediately updated their "average driving distance" posts here on TST :D) that went a lot farther than usual.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Some of the toughest holes on the Tour aren't the Par 5's but the longer par 4's and 3's.

Some of the tougher holes are actually the short par fours. 10 at Riviera, etc.

Designers have long tried to counter scoring with distance. Perhaps better designers should have been more creative.

I'm really looking forward to the U.S. Open at Merion. And Chambers Bay in 2015. And Pinehurst in 2014 too, come to think of it.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I like Jack, but this position is a bit self serving in that he has a legacy to protect and with the current technology there's a greater risk his records could be beaten.

I wonder what Jack's reaction (during his prime) would have been if Hogan had suggested a technology rollback after watching Jack's success using higher tech clubs and balls than Hogan had to play during his prime.

Don't see this rationale at all. There's only one person playing right now with a shot at beating the main record he achieved - 18 pro majors - and that's Tiger. Who's next closest - someone with like 4 or 5?

Jack has never struck me as a self-serving individual with anything he has said, this topic included. Seems I recall years back where he advocated the 'Cayman' ball which flies like half the distance of a regular ball with the intent of using far less real estate to build courses. This is not a new topic for him.

So are you implying that he's only done this for selfish reasons? He was the longest driver on the tour back then but that "record" has been totally swamped already. So what records do you mean? A re you saying that a longer ball equals more major wins?

And re the differences in technology in Hogan's era & Jacks - they were nominal. Both used steel shafts, persimmon woods & balata balls. But the difference between Jack's era & now has been quantum. I think he's just saying how much this latest leap has degraded the integrity of the game & has made some venerable old courses obsolete.

And in a couple of weeks we are about to see this tested at Merion. Deemed way too short by today's standards to host a major. And I'll call it right now - the USGA is going to pull out all of its tricks in its bag to toughen it up - crazy-high rough,narrowed fairways,  lightning-fast greens, pins two paces from edges of greens, etc. That's the only way they can make it challenging given its shortness. We will see just how technology has changed the game given the last US Open there was 32 years ago.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Don't see this rationale at all. There's only one person playing right now with a shot at beating the main record he achieved - 18 pro majors - and that's Tiger. Who's next closest - someone with like 4 or 5?

Jack has never struck me as a self-serving individual with anything he has said, this topic included. Seems I recall years back where he advocated the 'Cayman' ball which flies like half the distance of a regular ball with the intent of using far less real estate to build courses. This is not a new topic for him.

So are you implying that he's only done this for selfish reasons? He was the longest driver on the tour back then but that "record" has been totally swamped already. So what records do you mean? Are you saying that a longer ball equals more major wins?

And re the differences in technology in Hogan's era & Jacks - they were nominal. Both used steel shafts, persimmon woods & balata balls. But the difference between Jack's era & now has been quantum. I think he's just saying how much this latest leap has degraded the integrity of the game & has made some venerable old courses obsolete.

And in a couple of weeks we are about to see this tested at Merion. Deemed way too short by today's standards to host a major. And I'll call it right now - the USGA is going to pull out all of its tricks in its bag to toughen it up - crazy-high rough,narrowed fairways,  lightning-fast greens, pins two paces from edges of greens, etc. That's the only way they can make it challenging given its shortness. We will see just how technology has changed the game given the last US Open there was 32 years ago.

Maybe his motivation in making such statements isn't to protect his legacy as a golfer but to protect some of his course designs from being antiquated.  Whatever the case, Jack's not above using his celebrity to push his agenda which isn't always in the best interest of the Tour players.

I also don't think you can compare the clubs Hogan used early in his career with the clubs Jack used later in his.

[zipazoid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Maybe his motivation in making such statements isn't to protect his legacy as a golfer but to protect some of his course designs from being antiquated. Whatever the case, Jack's not above using his celebrity to push his agenda which isn't always in the best interest of the Tour players.

He may not be above it, but show me evidence where he's done it. Two different things. One thing that has been pretty evident about Jack thru the years is his integrity. And I think his talk about the ball going too far isn't in the best interests of tour players, agreed. It's about it not being in the best interests of the game.

Now, you may have a point about his courses being antiquated, and I wouldn't blame him one bit for having that concern. But that wasn't your initial point - you talked about his records being broken - what course design records were you referring to?

Quote:

I also don't think you can compare the clubs Hogan used early in his career with the clubs Jack used later in his.

Fair point. And Hogan's early career compares decently to Jack's later career. But in Hogan's case, it wasn't technology holding him back early in his career, it was his swing. And Jack's later career, say the 80s, consisted of one major win - the '86 Masters. Yes, two Majors in 1980 when he was 40...but I would call that the 'late prime' of his career. So yes. the technology of the 1930s versus the 1980s was quite different. But I would contend the gap between the 1980s & now is far larger.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Jack has never struck me as a self-serving individual with anything he has said, this topic included.

Just on the topic of golf balls, he's a course developer (higher land costs to build a 7400 yard course makes it tougher to hire Jack than spending a million less and having 6700 yard courses) AND he owned an equipment company for a long time (that didn't produce golf balls).

A shorter ball would likely play into Tiger's hands - any decrease in ball performance would likely play into Tiger's hands - so I will agree that as it pertains to his records Jack isn't likely arguing for a shorter ball for personal reasons.

[MS256]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

And I'll call it right now - the USGA is going to pull out all of its tricks in its bag to toughen it up - crazy-high rough,narrowed fairways,  lightning-fast greens, pins two paces from edges of greens, etc.

Nothing at all wrong with "tricks". You don't have to lengthen a hole to make it tough. You don't have to mow fairways to an eighth of an inch so you get roughly the same roll out that you get on the Interstate highway. You don't have to mow a golf course from one boundry to another so every bad shot can be found. You don't have to clear the "woods" so it's looks like a city park in those woods and you can always find your ball and have a decent shot. You don't have to have a landing area in the fairway wide enough to land a couple of 747s at the same time. You don't have to have fairway bunkers with lips so low it's no penalty at all for getting in one of them. You don't have to have greens the size of my hay field.

Toughest three holes I play regularly:

1. A par five of less than 500 yards doglegging left up the side of a steep ridge. No look at the very sloping green even when laying up and every shot on the hole has the front foot well above the back foot. Any off line tee shot is gone into actual woods, not City Park woods. Good luck even finding your ball before a rattlesnake.

2. A par three of only 130 to 144 yards to a very small elevated turtle shaped green with anything left or long completely dead and anything short or right a tough up and down.

3. A par four of only 350 yards to a very small island green into the unobstructed brunt of the seemingly never ending 20 to 25 mph prevailing wind.

No length to any of them but good luck making birdies.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by MS256

Nothing at all wrong with "tricks". You don't have to lengthen a hole to make it tough. You don't have to mow fairways to an eighth of an inch so you get roughly the same roll out that you get on the Interstate highway. You don't have to mow a golf course from one boundry to another so every bad shot can be found. You don't have to clear the "woods" so it's looks like a city park in those woods and you can always find your ball and have a decent shot. You don't have to have a landing area in the fairway wide enough to land a couple of 747s at the same time. You don't have to have fairway bunkers with lips so low it's no penalty at all for getting in one of them. You don't have to have greens the size of my hay field.

Toughest three holes I play regularly:

1. A par five of less than 500 yards doglegging left up the side of a steep ridge. No look at the very sloping green even when laying up and every shot on the hole has the front foot well above the back foot. Any off line tee shot is gone into actual woods, not City Park woods. Good luck even finding your ball before a rattlesnake.

2. A par three of only 130 to 144 yards to a very small elevated turtle shaped green with anything left or long completely dead and anything short or right a tough up and down.

3. A par four of only 350 yards to a very small island green into the unobstructed brunt of the seemingly never ending 20 to 25 mph prevailing wind.

No length to any of them but good luck making birdies.

Exactly, too many courses designed in the last 20 years have used length to set the difficulty factor and ignored the other variables that can be used to make a course tougher to play.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

He may not be above it, but show me evidence where he's done it. Two different things. One thing that has been pretty evident about Jack thru the years is his integrity. And I think his talk about the ball going too far isn't in the best interests of tour players, agreed. It's about it not being in the best interests of the game.

Now, you may have a point about his courses being antiquated, and I wouldn't blame him one bit for having that concern. But that wasn't your initial point - you talked about his records being broken - what course design records were you referring to?

Fair point. And Hogan's early career compares decently to Jack's later career. But in Hogan's case, it wasn't technology holding him back early in his career, it was his swing. And Jack's later career, say the 80s, consisted of one major win - the '86 Masters. Yes, two Majors in 1980 when he was 40...but I would call that the 'late prime' of his career. So yes. the technology of the 1930s versus the 1980s was quite different. But I would contend the gap between the 1980s & now is far larger.

I agree that it's likely more about his courses becoming antiquated than his playing achievements (total wins, major victories, etc) being broken.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree that it's likely more about his courses becoming antiquated than his playing achievements (total wins, major victories, etc) being broken.

Right, and I will concede there's a bit of 'self serving' there, but remember that Jack isn't the only course designer out there - it wouldn't only make his courses obsolete but, potentially, thousands of others as well.

So I would hedge a bit & say he has good business sense along with high integrity - he likely sees a win-win in advocating the distance rollback - it would be good both for the game and his business.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Mordan

The whole point of Jack's suggestion of a 20% reduction is not to disadvantage long hitters. Currently as a long hitter you might play a 380 yard par 4 by hitting a 280 yard drive and a 100 yard sand wedge. A short hitter will play that hole with a 210 yard drive and a 170 yard 5 wood.

The equivalent hole then becomes a 340 yard par 4 where you hit a 250 yard drive followed by a 90 yard gap wedge and your short hitting buddy hits a 190 yard drive and a 160 yard 3 wood.

With reduced lengths a 380 yard par 4 means you hit driver followed by a 130 yard 8 iron but your short hitting friend can't get home in 2 and has to lay up. I reckon your friend might be thinking the rule change advantages you not him.

My buddy should not be playing from the same set of tees as me. Plain and simple. Why can't he just play the hole as 340 and I play it as 380? Personally, I think extending the tees only favors the guys like Tiger who are great with their long clubs off the deck. Seeing the average tour player hit a 5 iron or higher is comedic sometimes, all they're doing is setting up their short games. Few guys can actually put them on the green most of the time with a makeable putt. Even many of the long hitters who are good with drivers often suck with their irons. All you have to do is take the wedges out of the player's hands on approaches, and they won't be able to beat up the course, plain and simple. This can be done by extending the course so that the longest hitters can still get it in wedge range, or by positioning the trouble so it makes them play it safer.

I'm all for just making courses less recoverable if you want to discourage bombers. It doesn't have to be ridiculous, but this is Augusta's problem IMO, and why they have to keep moving the tees. Some Carnoustie rough or really thick trees or some water does wonders, but I see very little on Jack's course. He likes to position targets IMO and get the player to see what he sees rather than try to menace or confuse the player like a Pete Dye or something, and he gets pissed when someone goes a different way no matter how much of a risky shot it is.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree that it's likely more about his courses becoming antiquated than his playing achievements (total wins, major victories, etc) being broken.

Right, and I will concede there's a bit of 'self serving' there, but remember that Jack isn't the only course designer out there - it wouldn't only make his courses obsolete but, potentially, thousands of others as well.

So I would hedge a bit & say he has good business sense along with high integrity - he likely sees a win-win in advocating the distance rollback - it would be good both for the game and his business.

One consideration for making courses long without making them ultra difficult is that it's easier to "grade" them for players of different levels.  Better players, or those with delusions of grandeur, play farther back.  Shorter hitters, move up a tee box or two.  In both cases the course can be of a relatively forgiving nature and be fun for all players as long as they pick the tee that's suited to their game.  Care has to be taken with the design to keep such courses from being drab and uninspiring.

Take a course like MS256 mentioned and it can be sheer frustration for a high handicapper, even if it plays fairly short.  It may photograph well, and seem like a fine challenge, but take the difficulty a bit too far and players will stay away because they just don't have much fun there.

[GaijinGolfer]

Id be fine if they changed the ball or the clubs to reduce distance.  All that I would do is just move up a set of tees or courses could simply move the tees up because you wouldnt have regular joes driving the ball 275 yards.

I would mind either if they made us go back to persimmon woods and outlawed hybrids.  IMO, that would do a lot to reduce driving distance because even people like DJ, Bubba or Rory wouldnt be driving it 350 with persimmon.  Some might say that outlawing hybrids would make the game harder for some but then again they could always just bring back the 7 and 9 woods.

Theres another forum that Im on where they were talking about this same topic and quite a few of the people were saying that limiting the ball would drive people away from the game because it would make it less fun.  To that, I asked the question of if all of this new, modern, easier to use equipment is making golf more fun; then why is golf in decline in terms of participation?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Some of the old courses might need to be redesigned because they were initially designed as a long course and by todays standards they aren't a long course and have become too easy to play for the pro's.  It's really cause and effect, the course designers kept designing longer courses and the pro's and golf manufacturers responded by developing their bodies and clubs to compensate for the added distance.

Some of the toughest holes on the Tour aren't the Par 5's but the longer par 4's and 3's.  Setting a course up for pro's should mean there's a higher penalty for missing fairways, more sand, water, thicker rough, etc.  Make a course penal enough on mishits and the pro's will dial themselves back to make sure they go for accuracy over distance.

And then the pundits will whine about how players aren't hitting drivers on most of the holes.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Jack has never struck me as a self-serving individual with anything he has said, this topic included. Seems I recall years back where he advocated the 'Cayman' ball which flies like half the distance of a regular ball with the intent of using far less real estate to build courses. This is not a new topic for him.

Maybe not self-serving about the ball, but he was clearly self serving when he did everything he could to make number of major wins the criteria for GOAT, thereby writing Snead and Hogan out of the conversation when he had far more opportunities to win majors then they did.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Maybe not self-serving about the ball, but he was clearly self serving when he did everything he could to make number of major wins the criteria for GOAT, thereby writing Snead and Hogan out of the conversation when he had far more opportunities to win majors then they did.

Y'know, I had a feeling, when I used the words 'never' and 'anything' in my post that I would get a reply like this. Normally I try to shy away from such absolute language cuz it's hard to defend an absolute, and too easy to find an example negating the absolute. That being said, you're bringing up something totally off topic. We've rehashed GOAT repeatedly.

But I'll play along, trying to find some consensus. As it comes to the integrity of the game , Jack has been exemplary. How's that?

Now. As it comes to how he defined major wins or whatever pertaining to how his career should be viewed is something else entirely. Further, how he viewed majors was really nothing more than his opinion. That it ended up basically being the standard of determining GOAT isn't his problem, nor did he create it - he just used that standard for his career & let others judge whether it was relevant.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by iacas

If you (anyone) think distance is a problem, then the ball is likely the easiest way to attack it. BUT you first have to prove that distance is a problem.

We can all crunch the numbers. The point remains anyone who advocates "less distance" needs to prove that distance is a problem.

Designers have long tried to counter scoring with distance. Perhaps better designers should have been more creative.

Agreed, on all points.

You know how I love stats.  Numbers are objective.  Interpretation is subjective.  But when someone complains that long drives are making the game too easy on the PGA Tour, the stats should show a direct correlation over time between driving distance and scoring averages, among other things.  Granted, there are other variables that come into play like the fact that course designers have increased the length of courses and added penalizing hazards to compensate for players hitting the ball farther, so it's still subjective.

I couldn't find these numbers presented in the way I wanted, so I crunched them myself taking stats directly from the PGA Tour website.

I took three years into consideration:  1985, 2000, and 2012.  I looked at three different stats sheets:  Driving Distance, Driving Accuracy, and Scoring Average.  On each sheet, I took the top 100 players listed and calculated a simple average (arithmetic mean).  My theory (assuming that Jack was correct) was that I would see an increase in average driving distance, a decrease in driving accuracy, but an improvement in scoring average.  This was based on the theory that distance usually comes at a sacrifice of accuracy, but that even with the decreased accuracy, player scoring should still be improving because (as many have complained) the rough isn't bad enough to prohibit players from hitting decent approach shots.  After all, isn't this the complaint that Jack and others are making?

So here's what I found:

Driving Distance for 100 Longest Hitters

1985 - 17,330 drives went 4,585,670 yards for an average of 264.61 yards per drive.

2000 - 16,930 drives went 4,715,165 yards for an average of 278.51 yards per drive.

2012 - 14,918 drives went 4,415,755 yards for an average of 296.00 yards per drive.

A 11% reduction in the ball would bring today's driving average back to that of 1985. This is why I'd be opposed to a 20% reduction even IF someone can prove it's needed .

So did driving accuracy decrease as I expected?  This wasn't a critical piece of the argument, but I just wanted to see if accuracy was being affected in any way by the distance increase.

Driving Accuracy for 100 Most Accurate Hitters

(NOTE:  This includes all golf clubs used from the tee, not just drivers)

1985 - 82,686 fairways hit out of 121,523 possible for an accuracy of 68.04%

2000 - 87,360 fairways hit out of 121,164 possible for an accuracy of 72.10%

2012 - 67,861 fairways hit out of 105,000 possible for an accuracy of 64.63%

Not really seeing a huge correlation between distance and accuracy for these three years.

But scoring average should be better, right?  I mean, if Jack is saying that the courses are too "easy" for long hitters, then an increase in distance should mean an improvement in scoring.

Scoring Average for 100 Top Scorers

1985 - 636,037 strokes over 8900 rounds for an average of 71.46

2000 - 631,929 strokes over 8950 rounds for an average of 70.61

2012 - 559,758 strokes over 7926 rounds for an average of 70.62

So, since 1985 driving distance has increased 11.8% and scoring average has improved by less than a stroke.

I'm not gonna scroll back and call anyone out, but someone said something about how bad it is now that tournaments were being won by ridiculous scores because the scoring has improved so much with the increase in driving distance.  I don't see it.  I've seen some awesome scores (like Keegan Bradley's 10-under round at the BN) but it's not happening consistently.

I gotta say, I've tried everything I could to support Jack in a rollback, but I'm with Erik in that there's little evidence that it's a problem.  I honestly think TV coverage has just improved a lot and THAT's why we see more guys bombing long drives.  We have way more cameras on the course than we did when I started watching/playing back in the early 80s.  Add to that the fact that long drives are a hot topic (thanks to guys like Jack) and you get a formula that encourages the networks to show every guy who bombs one, no matter how well they're playing that day.  There is a PERCEIVED problem by some, but maybe the media is just guilty of helping make it look worse than it really is.

Golfers are clearly hitting the ball farther because of increased clubhead speed (as shown previously) but it's not making golf significantly easier for them as far as I can see. Part of this, I believe, is because golf course design has evolved to match the game over the years.

As much as some of us hate to see historic courses change their architecture in order to accommodate longer hitters, I feel it's a necessary evil. When given a choice between adding hazards, narrowing fairways, and increasing the "roughness" of the rough vs. hand-cuffing technology by handicapping the golf ball or restricting driver length/shaft weights, I'd rather see the courses change to fit the game (as they have been doing for decades) rather than changing the game to fit the courses.

Maybe fairway bunkers should be a little more difficult, too.  It's not much of a "hazard" if you can still reach the green on your 150-yard approach from a fairway bunker.  It's also not very "rough" if you can reach the green from a spot 20 yards off the fairway, in my opinion.  Leave those conditions for the municipal courses...not the ones on the Tour.  But that's really a different subject entirely.  There are solutions to the problem.  But as Erik has said there is little evidence that there is a problem to begin with.

[Mordan]

My buddy should not be playing from the same set of tees as me. Plain and simple. Why can't he just play the hole as 340 and I play it as 380?

You said that it was unfair that you'd lose your distance advantage over shorter hitters. Yes he can move up a tee box but then you're not in direct competition. In any situation where you're competing then you haven't lost any advantage by being a longer hitter. Thus it's not unfair to you.