Distance Insights Project – Page 2

Distance debate: Don’t blame the amateurs because Tour pros hit the ball too far

It seems everybody is ready to duke it out in the tangled mess that is the modern distance debate.

[jwplayer 5Vf9mTup-9JtFt04J]

In one corner are the rules makers. In another corner, the equipment manufacturers.

Across the octagon cage match are the pros, positioned opposite the amateurs. Course operators, architects, real estate developers, the voices on podcasts, Instagram influencers, the lady in the beverage cart, even the kid selling lost Top Flites from a shoe box in the yard on the side of No. 13 fairway – it seems everybody is ready to duke it out in the tangled mess that is the modern distance debate.

Different perspectives. Different goals. Different priorities, sometimes conflicting. None of them are necessarily wrong, but that doesn’t mean they’re all right, either.

One thing is certain: The vast majority of recreational amateurs – I dare say almost all of them – do not hit a golf ball too far. Except, perhaps, when they skull a bunker shot.

The U.S. Golf Association and the R&A released their Distance Insights Project on Tuesday, possibly laying the groundwork for reducing hitting distance in golf. The report speaks at length about the distance achieved by elite male golfers – mainly touring pros – leaving classic courses obsolete for top-tier championships.

It’s true: Cameron Champ, Dustin Johnson, Rory McIlroy and a handful of PGA Tour stars can send a ball unbelievable distances, reducing almost all par 4s and many par 5s to nothing more than a driver and a wedge. Bobby Jones said of a young Jack Nicklaus, “He plays a game with which I am not familiar.” That was 1965. What would the Georgia gentleman say about today’s professional power game?

But to you (pardon me if you’re a Tour pro), me and all the folks we’re likely to find in our weekend foursomes, Brooks Koepka’s overpowering of Erin Hills with a 3-wood in the 2017 U.S. Open means little when we’re on the tee.

The pros play a different game.

The PGA Tour is, at its core, entertainment. A traveling circus, stopping in a new town each week. Pitch the corporate tents and blow the fans’ minds with feats of daring and strength. It’s Cirque du Soleil, minus the feathery costumes. And just like a high-wire act, most of us have no real idea how they do it, or the years of sweat equity involved. We can enjoy it without comprehending the physics involved.

So yes, of course, elite pros might make the shot values of classic courses obsolete, but only for the week those million-dollar-earners are in town. They’ll be on their way to next week’s Tour stop soon enough, and those classic tracks can return to their glory for the most important golfers of all – those who pay the green fees and club dues.

Tour pros are unbelievably talented outliers, 100 yards or more to the right side of the distance bell curve. The USGA and R&A acknowledge that in their Distance Insights Project. The mere use of the word “elite” states the simple case that there just aren’t that many of them. If everybody hit the ball too far with precise control, we all would be elite. And inversely, none of us would be.

The report makes brief mention that recreational golfers have achieved distance gains over the past 100 years. Well, one would hope so. We have YouTube tutorials, online lessons, slow-motion smartphone video for our totally unqualified friends to analyze and 460-cubic-centimeter drivers designed by artificial intelligence. Not to mention golf balls that travel too far, except for when they don’t.

The Distance Insights Project offers that “today’s average drive distances for recreational men are in the range of 185-240 yards.” Those numbers are roughly backed up by Shot Scope, makers of GPS golf apps and shot trackers. Shot Scope reports that players with handicaps of 9 or under drive the ball an average 237 yards. Players with a handicap of 10-17 drive it 216 yards as a group, and players with handicaps of 18 and over average 199 yards.

Based on information on the USGA’s website, only a quarter of golfers have a handicap index lower than 9. That information, combined with Shot Scope’s distance data, means most golfers don’t hit the ball past 216 yards. Not exactly overpowering. Certainly not enough to render a classic golf course obsolete, as most players would be left with an approach shot of 200 yards or more on any par 4 that brushes past 400.

The Distance Insights Project rightly says some courses are too long for many amateurs, even that vast majority who never see the back tees except from the passenger side of the golf cart. As stated in the report, shorter courses offer tangible benefits: a smaller environmental footprint, lower costs to build and maintain, possibly quicker rounds. All very good points and admirable goals, but they do not necessarily mean recreational hitting distances must be reduced. It does not have to be an either/or approach.

Even at a modernly modest 6,400 yards or less, solid and creative golf architecture can withstand just about any amateur effort, especially when considering that most players don’t send the ball screaming past 200 yards off the tee. A few relatively powerful low handicappers might sneak in a couple extra rounds near par, but that hardly would indicate a course’s obsoletion.

The traditionalist in me – I have four old Bulls Eye putters and two persimmon drivers in my bedroom closet at home, so that counts for something – hates to say it, but the best part of the Distance Insights Project might be a proposed solution in the conclusion to the report that would allow tournament committees to enact a local rule requiring shorter-hitting equipment in select events. Such a local rule surely would be used mostly in elite competitions, allowing the rest of us to keep hitting our aerodynamically enhanced golf balls 15 yards short of the target.

That is much favorable compared to the second proposed solution, which would be to implement new equipment standards across the board. The ruling bodies state in the report that they don’t want to go that route if it “would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game.”

That leaves solution No. 1 as a betting favorite, and it’s bifurcation, pure and simple. For years, that was a scary term that evoked a sense that golf would fall apart if regular players ever learned that Tour pros really are better at golf. But as the USGA presents its suggestion as a local rule, it’s simply two sets of equipment standards rolled into one set of rules.

In reality, as Mr. Jones said in ’65, Tour pros play a game with which we are not familiar. The PGA Tour already enacts a web page’s worth of local rules almost every week, further separating the game they play from the game we play.

Why should equipment standards be any different?

[opinary poll=”do-you-think-distance-is-a-problem-in-go” customer=”golfweek”]

[lawrence-related id=778024460,778024372,778024483]

Lynch: The USGA’s distance report is out, and so begins the battle for golf’s future

The Distance Insights project serves notice to manufacturers who have long resisted action on distance.

To a jaundiced observer, golf debates must have all the obvious relevance of a couple of tweedy academics bickering over the best translation of Beowulf between draws on their pipes. No debate is more fractious than that surrounding distance, which has for years rumbled along like a freight train in the night. During that time friendships have been sundered, garments rended, pearls clutched and block buttons exhausted. To casual fans it must seem like golf esoterica; to those who care, it’s golf in extremis, an existential argument on the very future of the sport.

Ours is a game of byzantine conventions, so it’s unsurprising that many drive-by spectators believe it hasn’t evolved in years, that it remains the domain of those who prefer the way things used to be, regardless of what those things are. The reality is that golf, like an aging Hollywood actress, shows marked change if you know where to look. Only now have we reached a moment when its wheezy statutes begin to catch up.

The Distance Insights project report jointly issued by the USGA and the R&A represents the first draft of a manifesto on what the future of golf should look like. For those among us who wish to preserve the living works of art on which we play, who want to see restored the varied skill requirements that defined generations of legends, and who fear a looming sustainability crisis, it offers hope that the decades-long assault on those values is nearing an end.

In the words of the great Roberto Duran, no más.

There is ample blame to go around for how golf reached this impasse, but no shortage of it rests with the very people in Far Hills and St. Andrews who propose to lead us out of this quagmire. The governing bodies failed to govern diligently, a fact they had the grace to acknowledge in the document summarizing the conclusions of the 102-page report. They acquiesced to an equipment arms race that rendered obsolete some of our greatest courses and robbed elite ballstrikers of a natural advantage over inferior competitors. And the problem with a race that’s well underway is that it’s awfully difficult to call the runners back to the starting line.

Difficult, but not impossible.

The Distance Insights project frames the debate in terms that any golfer would struggle to rebut: “An enduring foundation of golf is that success in getting a ball from the tee to the hole in the fewest strokes should depend on using many different skills and judgments, rather than be dominated by only one or a few. In our view, it is essential for this to remain true for play at the diverse golf courses across the world, without the need for them to keep getting longer.”

The need to restate that basic principle is a tacit admission that it is significantly eroded. What the USGA and R&A did not state, at least not explicitly, is what precisely they will do to redress the issues caused by distance gains, to restore nuanced skill to the highest level of the game, to protect our finest courses, to ensure golf is sustainable for future generations.

The next steps that are broadly outlined in the report are in keeping with golf’s fondness for deliberate, ruminative processes, and at odds with the modern thirst for flip-switch change. There’ll be a year or so of more research with invitations for input extended to stakeholders, not least equipment manufacturers. Hence this effort at reassuring that hostile constituency: “It is not currently intended to consider revising the overall specifications in a way that would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game.”

If you’re an equipment company executive, those words “currently” and “all” may as well be flashing neon.

The response from the manufacturing quarter will be as furious as it is predictable, because this report cannot be read as anything other than a revolution foretold, a serving of notice to those who have long resisted action on distance with a combination of bluster, cries about restraint of trade and barely disguised legal threats.

Raising the idea of tackling distance via the introduction of a Local Rule —which tournaments and professional tours can choose to adopt while recreational golfers are free to ignore — is an artful use of parliamentary procedure to undercut those familiar browbeating warnings that Messrs. Davis and Slumbers want to steal distance from short-hitting chops who can hear the ball land. Manufacturers can continue to sell product. Most golfers will simply not be impacted.

It’s bifurcation by another name.

Change is most assuredly coming to the elite ranks. Consider this section of the report: “Notwithstanding the Equipment Rule specifications that seek to limit hitting distance, we believe that there is potential for further increases to occur within the existing rules, such as by using longer shafts, and that club and ball design will continue to evolve in conjunction with improved swing and fitting techniques to generate more hitting distance.”

In short, existing standards won’t prevent a worsening of problems caused by distance gains. That admission makes inevitable new specifications that will seek to roll back equipment and rein in distance, and not simply draw a line in the sand where we stand now.

The distance report is awash with the noble language of consensus building, but make no mistake — the USGA and R&A have fired the first shot in a war for the future of golf. It is both overdue and necessary.

[opinary poll=”do-you-think-distance-is-a-problem-in-go” customer=”golfweek”]

Five key takeaways from the USGA, R&A distance report

After years of study by the USGA and R&A on the effects of increased hitting distance in golf, the governing bodies are prepared to act.

After years of study by the U.S. Golf Association and R&A on the effects of increased hitting distance in golf with a focus on elite competitive players, it appears the ruling bodies are preparing to act.

When and how are yet to be determined. What is not in doubt is that distance achieved with drivers and other clubs has generally increased at the highest levels of golf.

The release of the ruling bodies’ Distance Insights project on Tuesday provides a few clues as to what’s on their minds. Here are five key takeaways:

Changes are coming

The USGA and R&A have monitored increases in modern hitting distance since their 2002 Joint Statement of Principles without action, but Tuesday’s release of their Distance Insights project seems to pave the way for changes.

The Distance Insights project states that “this continuing cycle of increases is undesirable and detrimental to golf’s long-term future” and that “golf will best thrive over the next decades and beyond if this continuing cycle of ever-increasing hitting distances and golf course length is brought to an end.”

The ruling bodies then state their next steps are to evaluate solutions in forming an objective to restrict any future distance gains. They discuss two possible methods of implementing solutions.

The report also “provides notice to equipment manufacturers of this overall area of interest under the Equipment Rulemaking Procedures.” Expect the wheels to start turning.

A Shotlink volunteer measures yardages during the first round of the Sony Open In Hawaii in 2019 in Honolulu, Hawaii. (Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Bifurcation through local rules

Bifurcation – separate sets of rules or equipment standards for professionals and recreational amateurs – always has been a complicated suggestion. The Distance Insights project states that the ruling bodies’ goal is to have all players compete under one set of rules.

But under the first suggested possible solution, the Distance Insights project discusses creating a local rule that essentially is bifurcation. The solution introduces the concept of local rules “that would specify use of clubs and/or balls intended to result in shorter hitting distances” and “allow committees that conduct golf competitions or oversee individual courses to choose, by Local Rule authorized under the Rules of Golf, whether and when to require that such equipment be used.”

That opens the door for restricting distance gains and even rolling back current distance at the discretion of such tournament committees as those on the PGA Tour or at select events such as the Masters or U.S. Open.

Local rules are prevalent on the PGA Tour and in other major championships, usually a nod to the fact that tournament golf at the highest level is in many ways different than a simple recreational match between friends. Such a local rule also might be the fastest and perhaps easiest solution to implement any necessary distance restrictions, as it would focus on those players who have generated the greatest distance concerns (male tour pros) while not effecting the less-studied recreational amateur game.

Rollback of all equipment is possible but unlikely

The second possible solution is to roll back equipment standards – “conformance specifications for both clubs and balls” – across the board, but the intent is not to revise “the overall specifications in a way that would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game.”

Many proponents of decreasing hitting distance have focused on reducing the distance that golf balls can travel at various swing speeds, including those speeds typically achieved by recreational players. But with the ruling bodies’ statement that it doesn’t intend to substantially reduce distance at all levels of the game, that approach seems unlikely.

That doesn’t mean testing and conformance won’t change. The USGA has for years maintained a maximum travel distance for golf balls when tested under current methods, yet incremental distance gains undoubtedly have occurred. It’s reasonable to expect the ruling bodies to revamp their testing standards and conformance requirements to hamper equipment-based distance gains without further restricting distance expectations for recreational players.

The focus is elite male players

The Distance Insights project mentions distance gains by men, women, amateurs and pros that have occurred for more than a century. But the focus is on elite males, for whom the most comprehensive distance data is available. Much less studied is the overall effect of distance on the recreational amateur level.

While the Distance Insights project mentions a wide range of driving distances for amateur men – “185-240 yards as compared to a typical range of 130-180 yards around 1930” – the ruling bodies have not released any information on deep dives about recreational distance. The ruling bodies’ 2017 Distance Report said the groups had conducted studies at only six courses for men and eight for women, all in the United Kingdom. That report said that amateur distance was slightly up among that small sample captured on one day at each course per year.

It is unclear if any comprehensive studies of the recreational amateur game have been conducted since or if any are planned.

Golf courses are too long for amateurs

Bolstering the possibility that bifurcation through local rules might be on the horizon, the Distance Insights project states that while male pros have rendered many classic courses too short for elite competitions, most recreational golfers are playing courses that are too long.

Course lengths have been extended for decades in response to chasing “championship” lengths, regardless of whether any particular course might host elite competitions. The ruling bodies say the 90th percentile of courses, as expressed by longest courses, has increased from about 6,100 yards at the start of the 1900s to 7,200 yards today.

Besides increased costs to build and support longer courses, the report states that such courses are simply too long because even forward tee boxes have been pushed back. Even for players who use forward tee boxes, “many golfers using these tees may have little chance to reach various greens in regulation even with their longest and best drives and approach shots, and therefore are not offered the same type of playing experience as others on the same hole.”

While it might appear to be an apparent contradiction in the Distance Insights project that golf balls are flying too far for some players yet courses are too long for others, that information simply highlights the disparity between elite male hitting distances and those achieved by recreational players.

Anecdotal speculation has for years suggested that the greatest proportional distance gains have been seen among elite players swinging in excess of 110 mph. Bifurcation by the use of local rules might address such disparities.

[opinary poll=”do-you-think-distance-is-a-problem-in-go” customer=”golfweek”]

USGA, R&A report: Gains in distance have golf moving on an unsustainable path

While the distance report signals changes in the equipment rules could come, the USGA and R&A propose significant time for research.

In a highly anticipated report that has kept the golf world waiting for a year, the United States Golf Association and the R&A have determined that distance is playing an excessive role in the game and causing the sport to go in an unsustainable direction.

The USGA and R&A, the game’s governing bodies, released their Distance Insights project on Tuesday morning, a 102-page document which includes data and information from 56 different projects.

“This is something that has been swirling for decades,” Mike Davis, the CEO of the USGA, told Golfweek. “But what’s interesting is that when it comes to distance increases, it’s happening to all sectors of the game. People say that it’s really just about the elite game, but it’s not.”

While the report signals potential changes in the equipment rules could come in the next several years, the USGA and R&A are proposing significant time for research and evaluation before acting.

Driving distances keep increasing

Like a lawyer laying the groundwork of a court case, the Distance Insights project tries to methodically piece together a narrative that is convincing and easy to understand for both golfers and people working in the industry.

Citing the Rules of Golf, the report states, “golf is a challenging game in which success should depend on the player’s judgment, skill and abilities.”

The report makes a compelling argument that the increases in hitting distances and length of golf courses is part of a continuing cycle that is “undesirable and detrimental to golf’s long-term future.” Course lengths have continued to grow with the governing bodies identifying 11 course projects in the last three years that will result in total length above 7,500 yards. This is important because as the USGA and R&A acknowledge, the sport recognizes the need to adapt to environmental and natural resource concerns.

Similarly, data reported by the USGA and R&A shows the distance elite players hit the ball has been increasing for more than a century. From 1900 to the 1930s, elite golfer driving distances rose from a range of 160-200 yards to between 220-260 yards, thanks in large part to the adoption of the rubber-core ball. From the 1930s to the early 1990s, the average driving distance on the PGA Tour increased to 263 yards. But by 2003, as multi-layer balls and larger, titanium drivers were adopted, the average rose to 286 yards.

Cameron Champ led the PGA Tour in distance off the tee in 2019. Here he plays his shot during the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines. (Orlando Ramirez-USA TODAY Sports)

In 2019, the combined average driving distance on the PGA and European Tours was 294 yards, with the 20 longest hitters averaging 310. The USGA says the upward trend in distance is expected to continue in the future.

Possibility of a Local Rule

As many have argued that distance is a problem, they have called on the USGA and the R&A to roll back the performance of golf balls and dial back the distance of drivers. But the Distance Insights project does not make any recommendations for changes to the Rules of Golf or equipment standards.

It does, however, say that several research topics will be announced in the next 45 days, and different ideas will be explored and researched. This exploratory phase, which is expected to last between nine and 12 months, will look into several different factors that could help limit the effects of distance.

LYNCH: Distance report is out, and so begins the battle for golf’s future

Among the topics that will be studied is the potential adoption of a Local Rule that could specify the use of equipment that would result in shorter hitting distances, like a ball that flies less as far or drivers that have less springy faces, in certain events or tournaments.

“We put that out there as a concept to assess as part of this next phase,” said Thomas Pagel, the USGA’s senior managing director of governance. Asked if the USGA would consider playing a U.S. Open under a Local Rule that required players to use special equipment, he said, “We don’t even know what that might be. There may not be a Local Rule. It’s just something we want to look at.”

The USGA and R&A also plan to review the specifications that govern current clubs and balls, but the report states, “(The review) is not currently intended to consider revising the overall specifications in a way that would produce substantial reductions in hitting distances at all levels of the game.”

In other words, the USGA and R&A could work to limit the performance of clubs and balls to the levels where they are now or not make any equipment changes at all. What is clear is the governing bodies are not looking to take golf back to the persimmon era.

“If (the issue of distance) was really just about what has been happening on the PGA Tour, then they could, hypothetically, find courses that work for them,” Davis said. “This is way broader than that. It’s way more than just what’s happened since the Joint Statement of Principles back in 2002.”

In May of 2002, the USGA and R&A’s Joint Statement of Principles outlined how the game’s governing bodies view the relationship between golf, technology and distance. Many critics of the increasing-distance trend have pointed to the nearly 18-year-old document, which states, “Any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game.”

The Driving Distance average on the PGA Tour at the end of the 2002 season was 279.5 yards. In 2010 the average rose to 287.3 yards and last season it was 293.9 yards.

“(The Distance Insights project is) a long-term look, and we’re not trying to go back to some bygone era,” Davis said. “We’re saying, ‘Let’s look forward together.'”

Pressure on golf course operators

While players have gained distance over the years, new courses have been getting longer too. In the meantime, many older courses have been lengthened to maintain the shot values and risk/reward elements that are an integral part of the game.

According to the report, the average length of 18-hole courses between 1900 and the 1930s grew from between 5,400-5,500 yards to 6,200-6,300 yards. That range grew to between 6,600-6,700 yards by the 1990s. In the 2010s, the range was up to 6,700-6,800 yards, and the longest courses being constructed were over 7,400 yards.

The Distance Insights project concludes that as elite players continue to hit the ball farther, many golf courses either do not have space nor the resources to expand further. As a result, too many elite golfers can rely on power to hit over fairway bunkers, cut the corner on dogleg holes and take other challenges out of play.

A course worker waters the 14th hole during the final round of the U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills in 2018. (Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports)

“Eventually, over time, how each hole is designed to be played can be compromised,” Davis said. “You see less variety of shots. One of the things that will happen over time, but not necessarily overnight, is that those golf courses that can’t keep up with distance, there will be a perception among some golfers that it’s not a course they want to play anymore, or it has become obsolete. The data shows this.”

Many pundits and golf fans have been arguing these exact points for years, and they will wonder why the USGA and R&A are only acknowledging this problem now.

“Let me say this, we don’t have an emergency here. We’re not in a crisis,” Davis said. “Frankly, we are just seeing more pressure than we’ve ever seen on golf courses. When you look at the data in the U.S., there are many golf courses that have razor-thin profit margins and anything like having to build new tees, adding water, anything like that (can cause problems).”

Rand Jerris, the USGA’s senior managing director of public service, confirmed that approximately one in four golf facilities in the United States today loses money. The costs associated with water, fertilizers and course maintenance are expected to increase in the years to come, with some regions like the Southwest, Jerris said, likely to be hit harder than others. However, larger courses are inherently more expensive and require more work to maintain.

This is how distance, in the eyes of the USGA and R&A, is setting up an economically unsustainable cycle. If elite golfers continue to hit the ball farther, as the trend implies, it will force courses to spend more significant amounts of money to keep the challenge in the game. A lot of facilities will fail to keep up, and either shut down or be forced to charge more money and make golf even more expensive to play.

Davis and Jerris point out that while most golfers do not play from the back tees, those areas still have to be watered, fertilized and maintained for the few golfers who do. In that way, they argue, every golfer is paying for longer courses with their greens fees or club dues.

Some who read the Distance Insights project likely will be surprised to see that the USGA and R&A place some of the blame for the distance problem on recreational golfers.

“While there is a problem at the long end, with golf courses not being able to keep up with increases in distance, there is a problem at the other end, too,” Davis said. The data revealed to the USGA and R&A that too many golfers play from tee boxes that are too far back based on how far they hit the ball.

Golf facilities also fail to provide tees that are forward enough, and they do a poor job of educating players on the ideal course length for their game.

“Even if they have the tee grounds, there needs to be a discussion with golfers about where you really should play because that’s not only the way the designer of the course designed it to be played, but it’s also a more enjoyable experience.”

[opinary poll=”do-you-think-distance-is-a-problem-in-go” customer=”golfweek”]