Distance Regulation

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Going by the graph you posted it looks more like it plateaued aroung 2009, so stayed within a shot for the last decade. Also I read somewhere the average in Ireland is around 16, could have been the R&A spokeswoman who said it but I'll see if I can dig up some facts.

I read/heard something similar, we'll probably get a clearer pic of Ireland vs US/ROW as a bigger dataset is collected under the new handicap system.

Needless to say, assuming marginal changes in handicap is due to marginal changes in distance is quite presumptive.

Age old error of correlation equaling causation.

The data insights report shared explicitly stated 27% of changes in distance over the past 20 years can be attributed to frequency of use.

That leaves 73% ie an approximate 5% unexplained increase in distance over the past 2 decades.

Perhaps the impact of coaching, frequency of play, improved fitness are all possible contributors so plenty of reasons beyond technology.
That's without even mentioning the fact that most feel the marginal gains in distance have largely stagnated and arent an issue especially at the amateur level.

dan_ep82

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think you can say it plateaued if it's now 1.3 shots lower, considering it started on 16.3 and is now 14.2, that 1.3 is pretty significant?


The theory used to be that the average hasn't changed in years (from 18) but seems that's a myth.

Your missing the part where I said from 2009 It's moved .3 in 12 years (09'-21'). It moved from 16.3 to 14.5 in the previous 12 years (96'-09'), or 1.8 shots.

monkeybutter

GreeBo wrote: »

I guess if we are saying that distance is the biggest factor in scoring then the below chart without have to indicate that people are, on average hitting it further?
The current male avg is 13.7 so continuing to drop significantly.

More charts

as distance hasn't gone up in the last 20 years then the two charts aren't related

Sure haven't all those courses added acres of grass that needs to be cut to accom the long hitters, why hasn't his offset the handicap stats

All that cut grass has caused them all to go out of business

Can you graph distance increases versus the increase in maint costs versus the increase in total length of courses versus course closures versus handicap changes over the last 50 years

Now that would be a chart

That would keep ya busy anyway

Jimbee

redzerdrog wrote: »

Just listening to a podcast on this at the moment. Hack it out with crossfield, Scott Fawcett from Decade and Lou stagner.

Good discussion on it and they put forward my views far better than I can.

I went to follow Lou stagner on Twitter and found this cracker from the most famous course architect of all time

"In an ideal long hole, there should not only be a big advantage from successfully negotiating a long carry for the tee shot, but the longer the drive, the greater the advantage should be."

- Alister MacKenzie

The issue now is a senior golfer can take on the long carry, fairway bunkers are out of play for most plus golf clubs are so forgiving it's hard to hit a bad shot.
Watching the phoinex open take away the drive it is a game of pitch and putt.
The guys don't get to showcase there repertoire to be fair it's not very exciting, when you compare it to Seves great escapes. They could do more with a ball! Skillful it's called. Jorden Spieth has a cat swing and it in contention as well as Steve Stricker at 54 I mean reality check needed badly!

GreeBo

dan_ep82 wrote: »

Your missing the part where I said from 2009 It's moved .3 in 12 years (09'-21'). It moved from 16.3 to 14.5 in the previous 12 years (96'-09'), or 1.8 shots.

But it hasn't only moved .3, the average is now 13.7 , so has come down .8 shots since 2009 (that graph stops in 2016!)

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Needless to say, assuming marginal changes in handicap is due to marginal changes in distance is quite presumptive.

"Marginal changes"?
Really?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Age old error of correlation equaling causation.

Nope, I'm just showing the stats, you were one of the posters who said that increase in distance leads to lower scores...

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

That's without even mentioning the fact that most feel the marginal gains in distance have largely stagnated and arent an issue especially at the amateur level.

Despite the fact that the slope of the trend line of the average distance/handicap is only going in one direction, albeit that you keep disputing this.

GreeBo

monkeybutter wrote: »

More charts

as distance hasn't gone up in the last 20 years then the two charts aren't related

Sure haven't all those courses added acres of grass that needs to be cut to accom the long hitters, why hasn't his offset the handicap stats

All that cut grass has caused them all to go out of business

Can you graph distance increases versus the increase in maint costs versus the increase in total length of courses versus course closures versus handicap changes over the last 50 years

Now that would be a chart

That would keep ya busy anyway

A lot of words there but nothing that disputes any of the facts I have posted, again, I won't bother engaging if you are not actually trying to have a meaningful or sensible discussion.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

GreeBo wrote: »

"Marginal changes"?
Really?


Nope, I'm just showing the stats, you were one of the posters who said that increase in distance leads to lower scores...



Despite the fact that the slope of the trend line of the average distance/handicap is only going in one direction, albeit that you keep disputing this.

GreeBo wrote: »

from the Distance Insight report

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes, marginal. You're drawing some awful false equivalences.

Clearly if you know enough to share these graphs, you must understand that graphs which sit on different x-axis will skew data. That is data visualization 101.

You share one graph which begins in 1996 to represent distance and then share a graph which begins in 1991 to graph handicaps.
Please just any type of consistency would be welcomed.

Furthermore, I acknowledged multiple times now that a significant change happened due to graphite around 2000.

I've consistently said marginal in the past 20 years.
Please read what I said.

Again on the graph for handicap, handicaps have reduced from approx 15.6 to 14.4 since 2000 which is 7% reduction, that is marginal just like the change in distance.

So yes, to answer your question, it's marginal and as I also said correlation does not equal causation.

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

I see now that there is more whataboutery wrapped up here where the final data point in the graphs is also different so according to the combination of 2 different data sources :rolleyes: the handicap change is closer to 12% over that 20 year period.

Just to say I still think a 12% change over 20 years is pretty marginal. Also, worth reiterating further that correlation does not equal causation.

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I see now that there is more whataboutery wrapped up here where the final data point in the graphs is also different so according to the combination of 2 different data sources the handicap change is closer to 12% over that 20 year period.

Just to say I still think a 12% change over 20 years is pretty marginal. Also, worth reiterating further that correlation does not equal causation.

"whataboutery"?
Are you denying that the current male average handicap is what I am saying it is?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Yes, marginal. You're drawing some awful false equivalences.

I'm not drawing any equivalence, I'm posting the available facts. If you have other facts, please share them!

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Clearly if you know enough to share these graphs, you must understand that graphs which sit on different x-axis will skew data. That is data visualization 101.

You share one graph which begins in 1996 to represent distance and then share a graph which begins in 1991 to graph handicaps.
Please just any type of consistency would be welcomed.

Both are graphs over time showing an increase in average distance and a decrease in average handicap.
Are you seriously saying that you are going to disregard the details because I havent reformatted into a single graph? Thats seriously your argument, on a message forum?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I've consistently said marginal in the past 20 years.
Please read what I said.

Again on the graph for handicap, handicaps have reduced from approx 15.6 to 14.4 since 2000 which is 7% reduction, that is marginal just like the change in distance.

So yes, to answer your question, it's marginal and as I also said correlation does not equal causation.

Ah come on, who looks at percentages when it comes to golf handicaps?
A 1 shot drop on average for every male golfer in the US is huge. You really can't deny that.

And for the last time, I have not equated correlation & causation, (you did that with distance and handicaps in the other thread!) I'm posting two facts, distances have increase and over the same time period handicaps have dropped. Perhaps you could argue the other things that explain it, other than distance?

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

GreeBo wrote: »

"whataboutery"?
Are you denying that the current male average handicap is what I am saying it is?

I'm questioning consistency of sources and how your drawing false equivalences.
If you're attempting to make a care, be consistent.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not drawing any equivalence, I'm posting the available facts. If you have other facts, please share them!

Yes and I'm questioning your conclusions. You're making large leaps with little proof. I acknowledge changes have occurred and I've given potential other contributors beyond distance.
Again please try and read what I said. You haven't shown anything which PROVES that distance reduces handicaps.

That's your point, you've just shown two graphs which trend in a suggestive manner. That's not proof.

GreeBo wrote: »

Both are graphs over time showing an increase in average distance and a decrease in average handicap.
Are you seriously saying that you are going to disregard the details because I havent reformatted into a single graph? Thats seriously your argument, on a message forum?

No I'm just highlighting another flaw in an already very poor argument.

GreeBo wrote: »

"
Ah come on, who looks at percentages when it comes to golf handicaps?
A 1 shot drop on average for every male golfer in the US is huge. You really can't deny that.

So you think a 1 shot drop is more representative than a rate?
Clearly someone dropping from 5 to 4 is different to dropping from 13 to 12, using rates helps to normalise. Showing it in this manner is clearly more advantageous, incredible that you could even suggest otherwise.

GreeBo wrote: »

And for the last time, I have not equated correlation & causation, (you did that with distance and handicaps in the other thread!) I'm posting two facts, distances have increase and over the same time period handicaps have dropped. Perhaps you could argue the other things that explain it, other than distance?

No I didnt, please share where I said that?

Again I've given a variety of reasons why this might have occurred.
Please read what I wrote, you have proved nothing with what you have shared.

You've used graphs which are suggestive but not proof.

I have presented one piece of proof from your source which explicitly stated 27% of the increase in distance is due to frequency of use.

That is proof, you have given nothing as concrete as that.

dan_ep82

GreeBo wrote: »

But it hasn't only moved .3, the average is now 13.7 , so has come down .8 shots since 2009 (that graph stops in 2016!)

I'm aware it stops in 2016, however the current average male HC in the states ( where you data is from) is 14.2

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicapping-stats.html

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

dan_ep82 wrote: »

I'm aware it stops in 2016, however the current average male HC in the states ( where you data is from) is 14.2

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicapping-stats.html

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I see now that there is more whataboutery wrapped up here where the final data point in the graphs is also different so according to the combination of 2 different data sources :rolleyes: the handicap change is closer to 12% over that 20 year period.

Just to say I still think a 12% change over 20 years is pretty marginal. Also, worth reiterating further that correlation does not equal causation.

So it was two different data sources and it was a false equivalence.

So basically where we're really at over the period I suggested is somewhere in between around a 8.9% reduction in handicaps over a 20 year period and no closer to learning if that is due to increased distance.

As I said, if you're going to make an argument, at least be consistent in your sources.

GreeBo

dan_ep82 wrote: »

I'm aware it stops in 2016, however the current average male HC in the states ( where you data is from) is 14.2

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicapping-stats.html

This is the most up to date number I can find (from Feb this year), but its potentially the median.
https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2021/02/01/what-is-the-average-usga-handicap-index-for-golfers-121868/

monkeybutter

GreeBo wrote: »

A lot of words there but nothing that disputes any of the facts I have posted, again, I won't bother engaging if you are not actually trying to have a meaningful or sensible discussion.

they are all sensible and make a mockery of your arguments



the distance graph you posted shows that distances haven't gone up up in the last 20 years


you can't ignore this one graph and then not ignore the others


you make no sense

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I'm questioning consistency of sources and how your drawing false equivalences.
If you're attempting to make a care, be consistent.

I cant provide consistent sources if the source doesnt provide both graphs.
However, the handicap vs distance is from the USGA Distance Insight reports and the handicap trend is also based on USGA handicap, I'm not sure what else you are expecting? Are you expecting me to commission a report?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Yes and I'm questioning your conclusions. You're making large leaps with little proof. I acknowledge changes have occurred and I've given potential other contributors beyond distance.

But I'm not drawing any conclusions, this thread is about distance regulation, I merely posted some stats that show handicaps dropping, on the back of the other thread where many posters were linking distance and scoring I thought it was relevant to bring it up.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Again please try and read what I said. You haven't shown anything which PROVES that distance reduces handicaps.

Apologies, I was confusing you with ShivasIrons.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

That's your point, you've just shown two graphs which trend in a suggestive manner. That's not proof.

Erm, I'm not trying to provide scientific proof, this is a golf discussion forum?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

So you think a 1 shot drop is more representative than a rate?
Clearly someone dropping from 5 to 4 is different to dropping from 13 to 12, using rates helps to normalise. Showing it in this manner is clearly more advantageous, incredible that you could even suggest otherwise.

I think think you can normalise though, since, as you say 1 shot isn't the same, but I think rates suffer from the
issue, going from 10-9 is still harder (IMO) than going from 36 to 32.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Again I've given a variety of reasons why this might have occurred.
Please read what I wrote, you have proved nothing with what you have shared.

Equally you havent shown anything that would prove (or even indicate) that more people are taking more coaching or playing more golf than the did before. So not only have you not proved any causation, you havent even provided any evidence of its existence!

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

You've used graphs which are suggestive but not proof.

Which is all I'm trying to do, provoke a discussion, this isnt CERN!

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I have presented one piece of proof from your source which explicitly stated 27% of the increase in distance is due to frequency of use.

That is proof, you have given nothing as concrete as that.

Thats from the report that I provided but in any case, there is still the other 73% to explain?

GreeBo

monkeybutter wrote: »

the distance graph you posted shows that distances haven't gone up up in the last 20 years

The higher the handicap the further the ball is going than ever before, do you disagree with this?

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

GreeBo wrote: »

I cant provide consistent sources if the source doesnt provide both graphs.
However, the handicap vs distance is from the USGA Distance Insight reports and the handicap trend is also based on USGA handicap, I'm not sure what else you are expecting? Are you expecting me to commission a report?

You were the one who introduced these graphs as validation for your position.
Visuals generally make a compelling case which is why you used them. You should be accepting and prepared for push back when they’re flawed.

GreeBo wrote: »

But I'm not drawing any conclusions, this thread is about distance regulation, I merely posted some stats that show handicaps dropping, on the back of the other thread where many posters were linking distance and scoring I thought it was relevant to bring it up.

That's fine but you should be able to make your case on it's merits without dragging up a previous discussion. That just undermines your argument now.

That is even more true when the people you are discussing it with you now didn't say what you think they did.

GreeBo wrote: »

Apologies, I was confusing you with ShivasIrons.

That's the 2nd apology you've given me for misrepresenting me. As I've said numerous times now, you should read what I have written and not respond to what you think I have written.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think think you can normalise though, since, as you say 1 shot isn't the same, but I think rates suffer from the
issue, going from 10-9 is still harder (IMO) than going from 36 to 32.

They do suffer, I'm not suggesting they don't but clearly they are better than your "1 shot" argument.

GreeBo wrote: »

Equally you havent shown anything that would prove (or even indicate) that more people are taking more coaching or playing more golf than the did before. So not only have you not proved any causation, you havent even provided any evidence of its existence!

I haven't attempted to make a case for one single thing, you have.

I shared one thing which was news to me. The one thing I said ie frequency of use has increased distance is in fact shown in explicit. You haven't come close to showing anything as concrete.

I have offered various alternatives as a counter to you because it involves a myriad of things. You're clearly hanging your hat one but failing to deliver a good argument.
I'm totally open to someone showing me that the alternatives I suggested are wrong but that's not what your argument has done. It's simply very unconvincing.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats from the report that I provided but in any case, there is still the other 73% to explain?

Yes I've said that too and what you have shared thus far doesn't make a compelling case for where that 73% has come from and more importantly why it might change moving forward.
It's clearly plateaued in the past 20 years so why is it only an issue now.

It's not an issue, as I said early on it's topical because of the salience of distance at the pro level.

Most feel it is largely irrelevant at the amateur level for a long time now and you haven't shared why it is an issue nor why it might become an issue moving forward.

monkeybutter

GreeBo wrote: »

The higher the handicap the further the ball is going than ever before, do you disagree with this?

the graph show it was higher mid 2000s than now


so no


it hasn't gone any further in the last 20 years since they introduced the measures to stop the ball going further


do you agree with that

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

You were the one who introduced these graphs as validation for your position.
Visuals generally make a compelling case which is why you used them. You should be accepting and prepared for push back when they’re flawed.

My position (in this thread) is that the ball is travelling further than before and that it is detrimental to the game.
For me, the graphs clearly support that, however I would much rather have other graphs (such as distance or handicap by age over time) but since these are not available I have shared the only graphs that I can find that are relevant to the discussion. Again, this is a discussion forum, I think perhaps you forget that sometimes?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

That's fine but you should be able to make your case on it's merits without dragging up a previous discussion. That just undermines your argument now.

Again, my argument is that the ball is going further than it did, further than it needs to and that this is negatively impacting the game. It would appear that the governing bodies of the game agree, so its not like I'm hanging on out a limb here.
Oh I think "dragging up a previous discussion" is a bit disingenuous when that other discussion is the one that prompted this very thread?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

That's the 2nd apology you've given me for misrepresenting me. As I've said numerous times now, you should read what I have written and not respond to what you think I have written.

Would you like me to apologise again? Perhaps post some self flagellation? I'm really not sure what response you are looking for here...

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

They do suffer, I'm not suggesting they don't but clearly they are better than your "1 shot" argument.

Well I dont think it is so clear, thats my opinion for which I am entitled, despite your opinion to the contrary.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I haven't attempted to make a case for one single thing, you have.

So what exactly is it you are doing here then, other than nitpicking without actually adding to the discussion at all?
Perhaps actually *try* to make a case of your own?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I shared one thing which was news to me. The one thing I said ie frequency of use has increased distance is in fact shown in explicit. You haven't come close to showing anything as concrete.

For the umpteenth time, I am sharing the facts that are available, based on the studies of the subject.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I have offered various alternatives as a counter to you because it involves a myriad of things. You're clearly hanging your hat one but failing to deliver a good argument.

You havent delivered anything that backs up your thoughts behind increased distance.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I'm totally open to someone showing me that the alternatives I suggested are wrong but that's not what your argument has done. It's simply very unconvincing.

Its not mine or anyones job to try to prove things that you brought up without any evidence as wrong. Perhaps if you could back them up with some supporting graphs or facts it could be discussed? Maybe try to make a compelling case for your opinions, assuming you actually believe and stand behind them?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Yes I've said that too and what you have shared thus far doesn't make a compelling case for where that 73% has come from and more importantly why it might change moving forward.
It's clearly plateaued in the past 20 years so why is it only an issue now.

Well I have shown more than you have, since you have shown nothing.

It has plateaued for some yet not for others and all that does is bring everyone closer together in distance, despite different skill levels.

But also the fact that drivers are being used more is proof itself? Drivers go further than any other club, so the very fact that more people are hitting more drivers makes the game shorter than it ever was before.
You keep using that fact like it diminishes my point when it actually supports it, the game is getting longer and longer.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

It's not an issue, as I said early on it's topical because of the salience of distance at the pro level.

Most feel it is largely irrelevant at the amateur level for a long time now and you haven't shared why it is an issue nor why it might become an issue moving forward.

"its not an issue"? You state that like its a fact, yet you have shown nothing to support it, nothing to contradict the thoughts of the two governing bodies.

"most feel" again, some random thoughts from your head dont a survey make.
Finally, if you bothered to read my posts, I have shared multiple reasons as to why it is and will continue to be an issue (e.g. cost, space, time, environment) if we were to contrast that to your reasons why it isn't perhaps a discussion might break out?

GreeBo

monkeybutter wrote: »

the graph show it was higher mid 2000s than now


so no


it hasn't gone any further in the last 20 years since they introduced the measures to stop the ball going further


do you agree with that

trend
/trɛnd/
noun
1.
a general direction in which something is developing or changing.


Mod Edit, I'm leaving this so all can see but the message to you is to stay on topic and not make pointless posts that could be seen as baiting/flaming.
Please make yourself familiar with the Forum rules

monkeybutter

GreeBo wrote: »

trend
/trɛnd/
noun
1.
a general direction in which something is developing or changing.

its not developing or changing, it is flat lining no answers?

in 1996 it was trending upwards, then that stopped



change



verb



present participle:



changing 1. make (someone or something) different; alter or modify.

slave1

Hi folks, can we keep it back to topic please and ease up on the to and fro posts as these are derailing.
Thanks

tyivpc5qjx0f2b

My fundamental point throughout has been that distance is not an issue in the amateur game and is being investigated now as a potential issue because of the salience of the distance discussion in the pro game.

I acknowledge that an uptick in distance occurred around 2000, likely due to the ubiquitous use of graphite around that time.
Worth pointing out that contrary to what is being suggested the USGA investigating if distance is an issue is not the same as them taking action so nothing may come of this.

Since 2000, marginal changes in handicaps & distance have occurred.
Although I don't think distance is an issue, we know that the marginal increase was driven by increased use of the driver (27%) and a myriad of other factors-I'm sure tech was one of them.
If we wish to return driving distance back to pre-90s levels for whatever reason, the most likely method would be via tech adjustments.

Although tech is unlikely to have driven the remaining 73% of the increase, it would need to account for 100% of the adjustment so the change would be substantial.
That is assuming of course that nobody is advocating for a limitation on driver use.

Although a correlation exists between distance increasing(marginally) and handicaps decreasing(marginally), that does not mean one caused the other. I suggested a variety of different things merely as discussion points.

I'm not suggesting they have caused handicaps to lower slightly so it's not something I need to *prove*, I just don't believe anything we have been shown thus far has proved distance increases as a key contributor of reduced handicaps.

I'll be leaving it there but that is fundamentally my position on the topics discussed.

GreeBo

Slave1 wrote: »

Mod Edit, I'm leaving this so all can see but the message to you is to stay on topic and not make pointless posts that could be seen as baiting/flaming.
Please make yourself familiar with the Forum rules

How is my post off topic? The graphs have a trend, so I'm explaining what a trend is since the other poster thinks picking 1 data point over 25 years is meaningful in this discussion. (and in fact goes on to pick the first data point!)

Mod Edit

One week ban per forum charter
"Failure to adhere to any of the "mod" related rules will result in an instant 1 week ban"

GreeBo

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

My fundamental point throughout has been that distance is not an issue in the amateur game

And that's a perfectly fine opinion to have and discuss.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Worth pointing out that contrary to what is being suggested the USGA investigating if distance is an issue is not the same as them taking action so nothing may come of this.

Most people kick off an investigation like this with the intention of taking action based on the results.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Although tech is unlikely to have driven the remaining 73% of the increase, it would need to account for 100% of the adjustment so the change would be substantial.

I think simply reducing the ball would take care of it all, it should be easy enough to set up a limited flight ball to whatever distance required.
Modifying the ball would mean that players also can benefit from things like easier to hit drivers.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

That is assuming of course that nobody is advocating for a limitation on driver use.

By this do you mean restricting the amount of times a driver could be used per round?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

Although a correlation exists between distance increasing(marginally) and handicaps decreasing(marginally), that does not mean one caused the other. I suggested a variety of different things merely as discussion points.

Again thats fine, I raised my points also for discussion.

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I'm not suggesting they have caused handicaps to lower slightly so it's not something I need to *prove*, I just don't believe anything we have been shown thus far has proved distance increases as a key contributor of reduced handicaps.

I'm confused now, if they didnt cause handicaps to lower, but you also dont think that distance did it....what did it?

Alivia Most Kite wrote: »

I'll be leaving it there but that is fundamentally my position on the topics discussed.

I don't see any reason to stop engaging, just please discuss your opinion rather than keep nit picking at everything I post...

GreeBo

monkeybutter wrote: »

in 1996 it was trending upwards, then that stopped

1996 is a single and the first data point on the graph, which by definition cannot have a trend so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

blue note

I think some regulation to affect how far amateurs hit it would be good. The big jump in how far we hit it took place about 20 years ago, since then I don't think there has been all that big an increase. Although golfers have gotten older and the distances have remained fairly constant, so there probably has been some difference.

In the thread on your favourite three holes, the first one I mentioned was the par 4 4th hole in Tramore from 20 years ago. When they redesigned the course they moved the green, because what was one of the hardest holes on the course became an interesting but relatively straightforward par 4. For the tee shot you had to hit to a fairway, with a valley of trees to the right. It was a driver hole and the tighter you were to the right with your tee shot the easier your second to the green would be. But too far right and you were in the trees and would be glad to find it (if you have a shot out). If you played a sensible tee shot and hit it where you aimed you were left with a mid iron to the green (carry required the whole way). And if you hit left of where you were aiming / were too cautious you could have a long iron / wood if you chose to go for the green at all. It was a great hole, until people started hitting it too far. In the late 90s there were a couple of people who could drive over the valley. A couple of years later a lot of the juniors and adults could do it. Now, I could comfortably clear it with a 5 wood. So, they moved the green, making it a very different hole. It's a shame, but it simply had to be done, the hole didn't work anymore. The new hole is good, but the old was probably the hole you'd remember most from the course if you played it once.

It was a similar story for the 12th hole in Tramore - it was a decision whether or not to try to clear the stream on the fairway with your tee shot. Now, I wouldn't even think about it being there. If I sliced my drive / didn't catch it or something, I'd still expect to clear it by 30 metres. And if I was playing with most people under 60, I'd expect they could comfortably clear it. Whereas in my first few years playing, you'd know the guys in the club who could clear that stream.

They're specific stories of why I would like to see the distances brought back. But the more general problem I have is that the number of shots I have to hit greens in regulation with a pitching wedge or less. I'll ignore Corballis where I'm a member now because it's a very unusual course. But thinking of Tramore from the white tees (where I was a member and most of the comps are played from), out of the par 4s and 5s there are only 2 holes on the front and 2 on the back where I would have more than a wedge into the green after a good drive. I'm not talking about Sunday best or anything like, I'm talking about at the lower end of my average range (220m). I'd consider it a lot more fun to hit a mix of low irons, high irons, wedges and even the odd wood into greens. Now in reality I go offline and will hit a few different length clubs into greens, but the point remains that the variety of shots that you would have hit into greens 20 years ago on the course has decreased. And the game is the worse for it in my opinion.

Now, new courses have to be longer to cope with modern amateur distance, and older courses have to update themselves. I'd say if you look at just about any course that was built mid-90s or earlier that hasn't had course upgrades you would regard it as a dated course. And that largely means not long enough anymore.

monkeybutter

GreeBo wrote: »

1996 is a single and the first data point on the graph, which by definition cannot have a trend so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here?

I said distances haven't increased in the last 20 years,



so why is this an issue now the graph shows this,



you chose to ignore this



no trend upwards there is nothing to argue with there



the trend up is from 1996 to 2000, then flat flat


everyone else can see this, only you can't

FixdePitchmark

Some thread - - didn't get to read much.

I hope they can alter the game / ball / equipment . That it only has an impact on the top end pro and higher speed players. You'd hope (considering) energy and drag are a squared relationship with velocity - that this could be done simply with ball . Then this ball could be used by all still. I personally think this idea of different equipment is very bad - and very harsh on the manufacturers. To add to this, golfers are nuts and want to use the same equipment as the pros.

This is all a terrible idea - if it makes the average golfer shorter - if it stops the downward trend of handicap - we seriously want to keep this trend. Golf is too hard and too slow. Keep the handicaps going down - and keep the amateurs hitting it longer and straighter (and this is only 230/ 240 yrds) at best for 95% of them.

I'll have to take on board that, there is a claim there that distance has altered some courses even for our level. But that has to be a very small number of courses /holes , for a very small number of players - and so what - they get the odd birdie (Great). I think in all these debates - remember how s**t and how slow amateurs are at golf. It is important whatever they do this is not made worse.