"But while equipment advances are nominal at the pro level, there are still gains to be had by the rest of us choppers."

E. Michael Johnson belts out another howler of a Golf World equipment column with his jubilation at the news of driving distance going down. It's fascinating how his normally even-keeled weekly roundout of what guys have in the bag becomes so emotional on the subject of distance.

After listing the driving distance number, he reports this vital news:

Scoring also is stable.

Whew! That's a relief. Especially since the number is jigged around with more than...oh I better not say.

Though the scoring average of 70.83 marks the first time it has dipped below 71, over the last five years the average on the PGA Tour has been 71.03, and over the past 10 years 71.10. From 1988 to 1997 it was 71.17. So the last 10 years have seen an improvement of a quarter-stroke per four rounds over the previous 10. Hardly cause for concern.

Because after all it's such an unadjusted number!

I know, I know. Courses are longer, pins are in insane positions, etc., etc. So? Pro golf is not a game. It is a sport. As such, it should be difficult, and the achievements of those playing it for a living are far superior to those of us who don't. The only courses that need to be lengthened are the 55 used for PGA Tour events. Any other venue doing so is just wasting open space.

Oh that'll really happen. Can those PGA Tour courses bill the manufacturers for the expense incurred?

I didn't think so.

Hey, and now a word from our sponsors...

But while equipment advances are nominal at the pro level, there are still gains to be had by the rest of us choppers. How much? Find a launch monitor that not only spits out launch conditions, but also reveals the optimum given your current swing speed. Odds are there's more than 20 yards you're not getting. Isn't that the only statistic you should be interested in?

Shop 'til ya drop!

Comments

[86general]

Instead of just lobbing one-line insults at Johnson's scoring analysis, how about offering some beefier rebuttal? Exactly how are the numbers adjusted, and what exactly does that prove?

[Adam Clayman]

"Pro golf is not a game. It is a sport. As such, it should be difficult, and the achievements of those playing it for a living are far superior to those of us who don't. "

Wow, It's amazing how many times someone can be wrong in one paragraph.

Tourney golf is the game. What us chops do, is the sport.

Considering the anal approach pros bring to the GAME, our accomplishments are far superior, on a relative scale.

[86general]

Our esteemed site host has argued that golf is - or should be considered, anyway - a sport, and definitely NOT a game.

But I love your thought about looking at accomplishments in golf on a relative scale. I'm still not sure I'd have reached the same conclusion, but it's a neat way to think about it.

I've actually used the same type of argument concerning the technology debate. Some say technology helps pros more than recreational chops. I say the opposite. Even if the pro is better at getting the maximum benefit from hi tech gear, it is meaningless, because all of the pros have the equipment, all benefit more or less equally, and there is no change in relative status. However, for a chop, whose main purpose is personal enjoyment/thrill, equipment can have a far greater impact, on a relative scale.

Like me driving the green on a 265 yard par 4 in Mesquite last month. Puny to a tour pro (who'd have done it with a 4 wood), and probably even to Smols and iacas, but it was a thrill I'll never forget. (Three-putted for par, too. I'll never forget that either...even though the first putt was impossible...)

[Smolmania]

Not likely for me 86, but I have to say that Tiger can hit his 3-iron that far if he takes a rip at it.

And I'm not going to be able to convince you that the distance the pros hit the modern golf ball is bad for the game in this post, so I won't try. But for me, a large part of the appeal of the game was the ability for an amateur chop (such as myself) to -- on rare occasions -- hit a golf shot just as well as the best players in the world. I'm sorry 86, but I just don't think the opportunity is there as often now -- and as far as I can tell (based strictly on personal anecdotal evidence from personal play with really good players) it's because the ball goes so far. . .

[86general]

We have an amicable treaty, Smols.

For the record, the GPS measured distance of my drive was 278, level shot......severe green, where my ball ended up in a hollow, still on the green, at least 3 feet below the level of the hole. Hole on knob...eagle putt was pretty good, got it to 5 feet. And then 86G showed up to finish it off in par. Lost the hole, too, to a 6 hcp woman player, who weighed about 105 pounds soaking wet. She bunted her drive about 235, chipped up, and holed the putt. Niiiiiiice.

[86general]

Smols--I agree that the gap is widening. But the potential for that thrill isn't _completely_ gone. In Golf Digest this month, Steve Striker is the featured player in the "What's In My Bag" page, and he lists his driver distance as something in the 270-280 range, and says that when he nails one he can "get it out there 290." My drive wasn't 290, but it was certainly in his ballpark, and that ain't bad. Sticker isn't a long hitter, but he's not a bunter, and I'd say he's a pretty fine golfer...

[86general]

Didn't mean to hijack the thread.

I'd still like to hear if Geoff has something more than the one-liner pot shot at E.M. Johnson's piece about scoring average.

Again, how is the average manipulated, and in what way does this weaken his argument?

[Smolmania]

86, my partner in a lot of our local Better Ball events has always been about 4 strokes lower than I am in handicap (he's currently at +.7 and I finished at 4.5). He has a Titleist 983E driver that I couldn't hit (shaft too stiff and/or heavy for me) that I got about 5 years ago. He carries the ball at least 290 on a consistent basis. I am consistently 45-55 yards behind him unless I smash one -- which is how I hurt myself at a recent scramble, and have been on the shelf for four weeks! He always used to be 25 or 30 yards longer. I've been to Hot Stix, and he's using a 5 year old driver that I purchased at Second Swing. The difference? He hits his Pro Vs further than I can ever imagine. Admittedly, he hits it further than Steve Stricker, but if the ball were toned down, the toning would affect him more than me.

[Four-putt]

To attempt to quantify these statistics is a total joke, mental masturbation for numbers geeks.

What about the unquantifiable variables that affect the PGA Tour's weekly and yearly scoring average? Like wind, rain, course conditions, agronomy factors, different fields (the big boys are playing less each year), player injuries, different courses, different course setups, hole locations, etc.?

What next, an article about how today's players are better than 25 years ago because they make more holes-in-one? Sheesh. Or, better yet, which manufacturer's clubs were used to make the most holes-in-one?

I cannot believe Golf World would run such a silly piece, except perhaps on April 1.

4p

[Four-putt]

And to think that driving distance for the tour over an entire season dropped 7.2 inches from the previous year. Ohmigod! Stop the presses! Re-plate the front cover!

4p

[86general]

The precision of numbers and what can be determined from them is a complicated subject. I am not a statistician, but use numbers alot and am accustomed to trying to figure out what can be deduced from numbers.

4p is of course right that a 7-inch decrease is never going to be signficant, and the fact that many factors can affect scoring is of course equally obvious.

But it's also a mistake to just throw your hands up and ignore the numbers for these reasons. I can guarantee you if distance had increased by a yard or 2 the last 2 years, some people would be pointing to it as evidence of something going on with the ball, or whatever their particular pet peeve is.

On scoring, I think it's probably valid to look at these numbers over a long period of time, since complicating factors like weather, course set ups, etc., probably level out over time.

Sometimes small difference do seem real and significant to us. Tiger Woods' scoring average might only be .5 strokes better than the next guy, which I am sure would not meet statistical signficance. But of course most of us would agree that difference is real, and reflects Tiger's superior scoring ability.

But I'm still waiting for Geoff to explain his comments more completely. He took a pot shot at the article for a specific reason--that the numbers are "adjusted"--so I am interested to know how, if Geoff knows, the numbers are adjusted, and why this weakens Johnson's point.

[86general]

And honest, I'm asking, not leading or laying a trap. I don't know the answer to my own question, and I want to see if there is anything real behind the attack on Mike Johnson's article.

If you're reading jneu, feel free to jump in with the inevitable shot at my references to "small differences meaning something" and a "seven inch decrease not being significant."

[jneu]

I couldn't afford a seven-inch decrease, 86.

[Chuck]

I don't speak for Geoff, 86.

One thing I propose, however, is that 'scoring' on the PGA Tour, as a historical measure, is a completely contrived number. Scoring stays within a range, not becuase performance on the course isn't changing (it is -- dramatically), but because they keep doing things to the courses to keep scoring largely the same. You know the routine; lengthening tees, tightening fairways, growing deeper rough, speeding up greens, tucking pins.

Full field/overall scoring is, in that sense, I would argue/agree, very much 'jigged' and 'adjusted.'

I don't know if that was Geoff's intended point. It would be mine, in making similar comments.

[86general]

The PGA Tour scoring statistic is an "adjusted" number. It is normalized in some fashion so that an equally weighted average can be obtained from sets of scores obtained in events of different scoring difficulty (i.e., different set ups of regular events v. majors, different weather, etc.).

I don't know precisely how they adjust the scores. But since Geoff went out of his way to post Johnson's article and make fun of Johnson's statements about scoring averages, I thought it would be nice for Geoff to at least substantiate his pot shot a little.

Is there any _real_ reason that the adjustment process invalidates looking at historical trends in scoring? I don't know, but Geoff seems to think so, and I'd want to know why. That's all I'm asking.

[10 Handicap]

How many amatuers can reach a 600 yard par 5? When they were 540 maybe 86 reached a couple with hard-pan fairways and a 30 mile per hour wind at his back, but 600?, no, as good as an ice cubes chance in hell. You go 86, your my blog fantacy hero!