The Ranting of “Distance Killjoys”

In the April 29 Golf World (story not posted), E. Michael Johnson writes about “distance killjoys ranting about how the hi-tech ball is ruining the game at the elite level.” I wonder if Jack Nicklaus, Ernie Els, Tiger Woods, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, oh, and a bunch of others think of themselves as distance killjoys ranting?

Anyway, Johnson states that the “emerging conventional wisdom” on distance changes in the game “is rarely challenged” and says the numbers don’t back up the panic.

He writes that PGA Tour driving distance averages are down 7 yards this year, but fails to note that the Tour has played on courses ranging from soaking wet to flash flooded almost every week. He cites the drop in scoring average (remember, it’s adjusted by the Tour with some wacky secret formula) as .02 shots lower than 1994. He doesn’t mention that fairway widths have shrunk 10-15 yards in that the last decade, while roughs have often been harvested at silly lengths.

Johnson then writes that 34 of the 50 courses on the Tour in ’94 are on the ‘05 schedule (apparently believing quality of course actually has something to do with selecting a Tour site these days). And he cites a ShotLink stat that says in 2004, “approximately a third of all shots were played from 175 yards and beyond while only some 20 percent were from 125 yards and closer.”

Um, so doesn’t that mean that 2/3’s of approach shots were played from 175 yards and in? Which, with today’s ball and irons, is a 7-iron and in for most. Which, renders most long par-4’s and par-3’s much different than they were ten years ago.

He sums the piece up by writing that if the USGA is “true to its word” and looks at factual information such as the number laid out above, “then don’t expect a rollback anytime soon.” Since when is the USGA true to its word?

***Update: A reader who wished to remain anonymous says further scrutiny is in order. In Johnson’s defense, he’s given a very small amount of space to make his case, however...

Regarding the use of the “one-third of approaches from 175 and out,” the reader wanted to know if this includes second shots to reach par-5 holes (that would certainly bolster by figure by a large amount), and why is this statistic stated as a generalization (one-third, two-thirds) when the other numbers are precise? Is “approximately one-third” actually a bit below one-third but fudged? It’s not a big leap from “approximately one-third” to “approximately one-fourth.” And the reader also pointed out that 175 in 1994 meant a 5 or 6-iron then, today it's a 7 or 8 iron.

And on the topic of 34 courses still on the 2005 schedule that were on the ’94 schedule, the reader asks that Johnson look at how many of those courses have been lengthened since ’94. Just a cursory glance here tells me all but two or three have been extended or renovated significantly. Of course, the pro-technology gang believes it's a golf courses obligation to cover the cost to expand or cover increased liability insurance so that quarterly earnings can grow. So considerate of them!