PGA Tour Driving Distance Average Crosses 290-Yard Barrier
Courtesy of the PGA Tour's communications department, the final, official and accurate 2011 PGA Tour Driving Distance average: 290.9.
The 2010 driving distance average of 287.3 followed 2009's 287.9 and 2008's 287.3.
This is second largest season-to-season jump since the tour began tracking driving distance averages in 1980. (The largest increase: 6.5 yards between 2002 and 2003).
So since 2002 when the USGA and R&A announced they were drawing a line in the sand on distance increases whether they were caused by clubs, balls, technique, climate change or white belts, we've got a 10.5 yard increase since '02 and a 20-yard increase since 1998.
Is this significant? The "Statement of Principles" key lines:
The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that 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 consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.
The R&A and the USGA will consider all of these factors contributing to distance on a regular basis. Should such a situation of meaningful increases in distances arise, the R&A and the USGA would feel it immediately necessary to seek ways of protecting the game.
So what is the meaning of significant in this mindless distance chase?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Reader Comments (33)
I suppose there is much truth in the old saying ‘You can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink’ seems to spring to mind when we mention the R&A.
20 yards or even 10 yards DO have an effect upon our older courses, distance in the AIDS virus to golf, yet we mainly though technology and poor golf course architecture promote the infection not just to spread over one course but over all our courses.
In the old days correctly placed hazards would test the persistence of the long hitters. Forcing the Golfer to play/navigate the course and its design rather than taking to the easy aerial game, requiring more strategy in the golfer’s game – a simple but original part at the heart of the old game. Also removing rear bunkers to a Green will allow the long shot to continue its destiny. As in past days a poor shot would not be rewarded by being stopped by a shallow bunker allowing easy recovery.
The lack of clarity by the R&A on this one subject alone out of many condemns them IMHO to proving their continued existence as our Governing Body. At least with a Parliament we would have the right to vote them out of office.
Perhaps when St Andrews Links Trust apply for planning permission to demolish The R&A Clubhouse behind the 1st on TOC due to having increase the length of the 1st Hole, the point might just by then have sunk into our sleeping beauties at The R&A. Although, I will not be holding my breath over this one.
Melvyn
Also, it should be mandatory that all players be fat, out of shape, as not flexible as possible....oh, and smoke and drink heavily.
Yeah.
Where's the USGA and R&A on this? They should be promulgating these rules....on the double.
"Obviously we should go back to Bobby Jones era equipment. Persimmon, hickory, etc.
Also, it should be mandatory that all players be fat, out of shape, as not flexible as possible....oh, and smoke and drink heavily.
Yeah.
Where's the USGA and R&A on this? They should be promulgating these rules....on the double."
or is he just joking as he has no answere to the problem - Eric_b all I can say is to repeat the opinion of others - BALLS, Sir its all in the balls.!
No, Eric. Nobody is suggesting that we go back to hickory, persimmon and balata. Nobody. You made that up. And, let's face it; it was stupid on your part to make that up, because in fact the reason that no 'rollback' proponents are proposign such a thing is that our interest is in making golf more accessible, less expensive and less dependent on technology. And in fact, hickory and persimmon and balata were all materials that were expensive, uneven in quality and easily breakable/cuttable.
So your suggestion is a perfectly idiotic strawman of an argument. Naturally, you've compounded the error by suggesting that perhaps "fitness" is also part of the distance gains of recent years, which does mostly nothing to explain JB Holmes' eye-popping distances, or how a Hale Irwin has gotten longer, distance-wise, in his mid-sxties.
And the agronomy argument is a non-starter. Combatting distance with tricks in golf course setups produces, as we know very well, boring golf, far removed from the architects' intent. Fixing golf ball distance by growing longer rough is like policing excessive speed on the roads by removing guardrails and oiling road surfaces.
As Geoff suggests, the one fallback argument that guys like you had, used to be that "Driving distance has leveled off! The rollbackers and Luddites won!" We knew that argument wouldn't last. And it hasn't. Driving distance, with unchecked technology was bound to increase. And it has. You've lost every argument there is, against sensible retooling of golf ball specifications.
@Ericb That argument makes no sense. Did you read the statement of principles?
@Wildbill Unfortunately many courses are taking your advice and consequently ruining the strategic intents of their courses. I have a better idea for you Wildbill to really punish those wayward drives, create a moat surrounding the fairways ;)
So now, all we need to do is wait for those private course golfer-fat cat members to stop "hoarding" their cash and start spending it on course remodels. I say we get the Open Doctor started on his plans to make Merion 8,000 yards in time for next year's Open. Hell, maybe he can re-route the entire course! More doglegs, more rough, pinch the fairways at 330 yards, and include at least three 650 yard par fives. Punish those wayward drives. No more easy birdies for those while belt wearing flatbellies!
Simply assess those rich Merion members about 250K each, and watch the jobs proliferate in the Philadelphia area. I'm guessing unemployment there drops significantly. It's a win-win.
The USGA is going to save our economy, you just wait and see.
Sincerely,
John Maynard Acushnet
That is one out of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'
The aerial game kills golf, yet links courses in windy conditions kill the aerial game, so more wind and links courses please.
There is nothing as boring as playing with someone who rides and plays the aerial game, you only see him at the Tees or Greens, generally well behind you and so helping the round take well over 6 hours.
Melvyn
Your sarcasm detector must be running low on batteries.
"...every course that you hold dear is still relevant to 99% of golfers in the world for the forseeable future..."
That is true. We are indeed talking about the the elite competitive players. Maybe not 1%, but close. I'll stipulate to 1%. It's a nice number. No loaded meanings, right?
Anyway, in golf, that 1% is rather important. They are the most visible players in the game. They are the focus of all of the game's attention, the creators of golf's competitive history, and the measuring stick of classic course design. Or at least they used to be. Until they began to require 7,600+ yard courses.
"The 1%" might sound small and irrelevant to some people, but it really isn't. Championship golf is one of the most visilbe parts of the game. We cannot ignore or work-around that 1%.
It is no-brainer easy: we can easily roll back golf balls, and instead of making classic golf course designs relevant for 99% of the game of golf, we can make it relevant to 100% of the game of golf. We can INCLUDE that all-important 1%.
We can always move tees forward. We cannot always move tees backwards. And we should not trick things up with hyper-fast greens (you lose lots of hole positions) or narrowed fairways and heavy rough (that spoils varying options for play) or phony hazards like added punitive bunkering or trees to prop up scoring.
There's no good reason for the USGA not to meaningfully regulate galf balls. If people want to play with bandit balls, they can go ahead and manufacture them. The USGA won't stop them. The only reason not to meaningfully regulate golf balls is the fear of litigation. And the only thing that could justify such litigation is a small number of manufacturers' (and maybe just one) wishing to maintain market-share in the ball manufacturing business. A manufacturer whose CEO insists that golf is an "aspirational game." Presumably meaning that the golf equipment-buying public needs to have ever-better performing tools or else the game loses interest for them. A psychological link that is, stretching through mass psychology to Wall Street, via golf ball patents.
Ian McAllister asked a wonderfully simple question that deserves an answer: "Where does it all end?"
And jw, by the way, you can't accuse the "fat cats" in Banktown USA (otherwise known as Charlotte NC) of hoarding their cash...every club of note in that town has undergone a top-to-bottom reno in the last few years! Well, not so much Quail, but the changes they are a comin'...!!!
Point is: who cares? If this kind of useless nonsense affects your enjoyment of the game, you probably don't enjoy golf that much to begin with.
Golf is still fun, still challenging, still entertaining....etc. etc. etc. This type of debate is stupid. And if you'd like to point out how I lose the argument by using big words or quoting tradition or any other useless nonsense, you're just proving my point.
You're all morons. Go hit the links. Enjoy the game. Cause to be frank, we're not debating anything here....we're just a pack of trolls.
Morons perhaps but I have only one wife, how many can I have if I really become a Moron? As for Trolls, no they are not found in Scotland but may live just over the border in NE England. A Troll I am told is a follower of technology to combat his poor grasp of the game of golf as a result of his poor skill levels.
Melvyn
"Long drives destroy the golf course architecture, they are vile and testosterone based acts of aggression. Long drivers should indeed be rewarded by well-placed hazards in their LZ and potential run off zones as a general rule. Designers of merit should understand the destructive nature of long driving and provide more obstacles while encouraging the shorter drivers as they take the challenge to navigate the design laid out by the Designer". MELVYN HUNTER MORROW
And it's not just the golf ball. The average swing speed on the PGA Tour is over 10 MPH faster now than it was 20 years ago. With any ball that's going to amount to a significant increase in distance.
Also, I'm glad the "eric_b" who posts spells his name with a "c."
While they are at it, they could also dictate drivers with a maximum size of 280 or 300 cc. I believe that we should fully test the skill level of elite golfers!
For full disclosure, I believe in bifurcation. I also enjoy hickory golf on occasions. A more difficult game on shorter courses would make walking more relevant for more players - a good benefit for us all.