2016-17 PGA Tour Distance Average Up 2.5 Yards To 292.5
One key crime of the wraparound: not getting to disgest, analyze and celebrate the many fun stats produced by the players and documented by the ShotLink system.
Thanks to the crack crew at ShotLink I just started looking over the 2016-17 stats as we roll into week two of 2017-18. Naturally, I went to the distance numbers first and the overall average spiked from last year's 290.0 number.
I'm fairly certain the 292.5 yard average for 2016-17 makes it a record year, proving yet again that core work and heavy use of foam rollers can pay dividends.
All drives in '16-17 averaged 285.1, but the records do not go back as far to put that number into perspective.
(Just a reminder here that the USGA and R&A Joint Statement of Principles was issued in 2002 suggesting significant increases would set off alarm bells. The PGA Tour Driving Distance average in 2002 was 279.5 yards, meaning a 13-yard increase since then.)
As for 2016-17...check out the interval chart:
Note that 43 players averaged over 300 yards, compared to 27 in 2015-16. That's also a new high mark for 300+ average. Just one player (John Daly) averaged over 300 yards in 2002 when the Statement of Principles was issued.
Do I need to keep going?
Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 01:58 AM 95 Comments | in 2017 PGA Tour, State of the Game, Technology
Reader Comments (95)
(insert Simpsons gif of old man shaking fist at clouds)
The real issue to me is what has all this distance done to the scoring average. I guess I just don't care at all about people hitting the ball off the planet, no one seems to be shooting 58s on a regular basis.
2017 - 68.84 - Jordan
2002 - 68.56 - Tiger
So - big deal. Who cares if golfers are hitting it farther if its not having a noticeable affect on scoring? Seriously why is this never an issue that people in the media bring up? People are so hyper focused on that distance number that they don't stop to say oh yeah, well, average scoring hasn't moved at all, so who cares. I'm open to debate though.
It's not about the scores - which can always be manipulated with narrower fairways, more rough,faster greens, longer courses - but how the great old courses play and the clubs players are hitting into the greens.
It's about the intent of the great old architects and how they saw their amazing courses playing. They'd be shocked now to see it all.
And lets say you do dial back the equipment for the sake of these "great old courses" - which I personally don't agree with - but lets say you do. What becomes of all the 7500-7800 yard monsters that people are building now. Those courses would become obsolete.
I'd be interested to see a survey chart that graphs the age of the respondent against how much they really care about distance increases in golf.
It's not the scores it's how they are posting them. Stretching out the courses make it a long hitters game now. It's become a one dimensional game. No need for tactics and imagination. The soul of golf is being eroded. Tournaments are in danger of being as exciting as long drive contests. Ok for 30 minutes but soon becomes bland and repetitive.
I recall from the telecast that driver wasn't really taken out of their hands, they just had to be careful where they hit their tee shot, but driver was still an option. That seems to be a reasonable course design. It will be interesting to see if the tour makes any changes (they own the course I think) so the players stop complaining, or if they make the best players in the world just play the hole as one of the top architects today challenged them to play it.
And I'm with Convert as athleticism certainly has played a role. The problem is that equipment, both the ball and driver, has played a far greater role and it should have been the other way around.
Chico, you're an R&A guy, what will it take for one or both of the "ruling bodies" to do something?
It has come to pass. Everything in the 2002 prediction has happened. For some like MC it does not matter. For others who remember a player, no matter how good, having to deal with fear as part of the equation in a shot, the game is no longer the same.
While some say it is inevitable like other sports they forget many other sports have defense to offset the superior athletics. The golf course is the defense in golf. For all but a few weeks a year when wind and weather combine the weekly monotony of bomb and gouge is on display. At least NASCAR has crashes to entertain the masses- Golf has Kevin Na lost in a mesquite nightmare or Spieth chunking a wedge on 12 at ANGC. Otherwise the game for the top tour has degraded to a human video contest that happens to be outside.
I agree, it would be nice to see more guys have to take out the 3-4-5 irons for second shots, and have to shape more shots. But the fact is, most people watching on the television do not have any sense as to these nuances. They just see a guy take a swing, a shot of the ball in the sky, and then a view of the green as the ball lands.
It is why I think current coverage needs to provide less of the viewpoint from the golfer on the second shot, and more a look from the green back to the golfer taking the shot. Watch the replay of the 1974 PGA Championship. It is awesome, as they used a lot of long-distance camera angles, which game a much greater appreciation for distance and shot shape.
A couple of retorts:
A) What you could do is shorten those 7,500 - 8,000 yard behemoths and maybe, use the extra space for something useful instead of unused fair way. Maybe even through in a new Par-3 course at Erin Hills!.
B) No question, DJ would still hit the revamped, Variable Distance ball farther than say, Brandon Grace. That is not where things get evened out. What would happen is instead of DJ taking out a edge on a second shot, he would have to use maybe his 6 or 7 iron to get to the green. Grace maybe a 4 - 5 iron. The way those clubs work in terms of trajectory towards the green are much different from when DJ hit PW and Grace is hitting 7 iron.
anyone can sue for anything. Could they win? My guess is they would sue on various grounds that the R&A and USGA have no grounds, based on years of precedent, lack of warning etc.. to suddenly change rules regarding how balls behave, and therefore, are causing undue economic damages to their business, as well as all of the lost return on investment or the R&D they put into all of their current ball offerings. I am not sure
An interesting parallel is the anchored putter. It is a smaller industry (the anchored putter manufacturers), and at the end of the day, few people adopted that style, and therefore, economics are different. In addition, there is not much in the way of R&D necessary to change a regular putters to an anchored putter.
I am not a lawyer, so if someone can chime in. I am not 100% sure they would win, but I think they would have a case that a sudden change in rules without giving industry time to adapt (i.e. - time to continue to market to the public these fancy, long-distance balls the Pros use), the governing bodies are responsible for economic losses.
Another aspect of this entire situation is the $$$$ ball manufacturers put into advertising their offerings. All Titleist has to do is threaten to pull all ad dollars from magazines, television, tournaments and players, and suddenly, this will send shivers down the backs of all whose livelihoods are threatened by such a move. So there is more than just the legal matter at hand. I could see suddenly a lot of conflicts of interest from industry players turning against those rulings, and getting an ignorant public to support the ball manufacturers and against the ruling bodies.
Which is why, I think there needs to be more ground roots efforts to make the public aware as to how all of this technology is ruining the game. But it is a tough sell to someone hitting current balls 220 yards being asked to play a ball that suddenly causes them to drive it sub-200.
I really think it's possible to make a ball that the 220 hitter will still hit 220 but the 320 will hit sub-300. Just food for thought.
You make a GREAT point. the average should be on a narrower group of golfers, not the whole shebang. These are the players who are winning- the top 50? No! How about the top 10 or top 25 of all the tournaments from the previous year, or YTD?
that would indicate what is winning, not the ''average'', but the average of the winners and top 10/25, a more realistic vieof where the game is actually at.
Some stat guy could do this, not me. Who was it that always brought the stats a couple years ago? Brain fog.... who...was...it?
''I really think it's possible''
Certainly , anything is ''possible'', but is it possibable? :) i don't know that it doesn't open a door for a cheater to switch balls.
I do agree it's worth a shot, but the company doing the r&d seems to need a reason to spend the $
dig
Based on your snark. Do you really feel the workout and training methods have little effect?
Or that the understanding that the higher launch/spin optimization is completely different than the years
In comparison? The "ideal" tee shot has changed dramatically fro 1990-2000-2010-now. Yes, some of it
Is the ability to make a Pinnacle that can spin, but the knowledge of how to max out is completely different than
The "old days.
I understand you're concern on courses being left behind, and that you're a historian, but every single time you get on
Your rant about distance and the ball, you always seem to have a need to dismiss the work, adjustments,
And learning curve (that the players you are most distance obsessed with) those players put in to crate these distances,
I've been involved in it as a player, now a coach, and to me, which I'm sure means little, you always seem petty while trying to simply make a point that you believe distance is a problem, but dismissing the amount of work the players do to create it and take advantage of it.
Ultimately does it matter if it's the ball or the athlete? I think it doesn't. It's going way too far for historic courses either way.
Brad,
Thanks for the response. Interesting situation.
Bifurcate already. It's time to join the other big boy leagues. Amateurs can use any bloody tech they want. Pay for play guys/gals use equipment that doesn't cover up mistakes so effectively. (Max cc <250)
So the ability to post your snarky remark, snark, is partially made possible by the very Callaway you mention in a diss, and will be so, unless Geoff removes the post.
A guy has to eat, and GS has done a good job of using his nerdability to become a minor TV person- a minion of sorts- one in a minion? Sorry Geoff- there's a word waiting to be created, but not by me right this minute.
dig
Long that long ago, to "play what the pros played" we used blades and balata, and had better be good enough to try. There was de facto bifurcation.
I would prefer to go back to persimmon, lose 15 yards, but only have the longest hitters 20 or 30 ahead of me...as opposed to 60.....
Saw your post just now. Top level players are certainly hitting it unprecedented distances.
Unfortunately as all too often happens, while looking for an easy fix, the preachers must
Denigrate or dismiss anything that doesn't fit the mantra.
Geoff will regularly dismiss the players abilities and efforts in frenzy to roll back distances.
All while hawking the same equipment that is allegedly ruining things.
Is the Old Course becoming irrelevant for Open Championships? Pretty damned close, if you watch tee shots
Flying previously dangerous bunkers. So as things have gotten here, let's make fun of work out routines, mechanic changes and equipment optimization that so many work tremendously hard on to score snark points. Go callaway!!
There is ONE simple way to make this happen and it shouldn't cost anyone anything.
Make the maximum weight of the ball less than 1.60 ounces... but more than 1.55.
The 1.55-ounce ball was tried a long time ago when all balls had balata covers and everyone hated it. But with today's lowers spin balls there's be virtually no effect on seniors, women and juniors because their ball speed is low. The probably would gain some carry distance, and they'd find it easier to hit a fairway wood because the ball would sit up better.
At the top end, high ball-speed players would need to tunk hard about using a driver into the wind, unless they had a "stinger."
The few pros left who love to shape shots would be in heaven because this ball would actually curve.
Make the new balls mandatory on Tour and top am events, stop making heavy balls immediately, give everyone else a few years to use up their old balls, and let the guys playing in their foursome on Sunday morning use whatever they want.
K
Somehow John Daly hits it much farther at 50 than 25 so I do think you can cross fitness training off the Who Done It? but I could be wrong.