Menu
There is a spirited debate among website members as well as in the golfing industry as a whole on the subject of whether or not increased performance (distance) made possible by equipment advances as well as human athletic progression is good or bad for the game. Certainly no one can argue with the fact that there are more players capable of hitting the ball long distances and still finding it than ever before. There are college players who can fly the ball in excess of 320 yards, which, with firm fairways, makes 600 yard par 5’s reachable in 2 shots with an iron. Any par 4 measuring less than 480 yards will be reached by many with a short iron and some of our greatest courses don’t even have holes that long.
Athletic progression cannot be stopped. The fact that players are bigger, stronger, fit, and more explosive in their abilities to produce clubhead speed is to be expected when the payoffs for being a winner on Tour have grown to over a million dollars per win. Length is an advantage any way you look at it, as shown succinctly by Mark Broadie in his Strokes Gained research. Instruction has improved at least to the point where more of these type athletes can square the clubface enough at these high speeds to at least keep the ball in play. This was not the case in years past. While the average driving distance increases among Tour players has slowed in recent years, if we look back 20 years we can see the huge difference equipment has made. Equipment companies have grown exponentially with the game and the best minds are being hired to provide the best equipment within the rules set down by the governing bodies. It is a tough, competitive business and you can’t blame any businessman for wanting to be successful, just as you can’t blame the players for wanting the equipment that gives them the best chance to succeed.
It is a knotty problem to consider whether the PGA Tour, The US Golf Association and the R&A have botched their anointed jobs to protect and further the game. I don’t think you are going to see any dialing back of what already exists, and since the Tour is doing quite nicely financially they don’t have much incentive to do so. The banning of anchored putters has caused a hue and cry, and if that is the case just imagine what would happen if the golf ball were legislated to go less far, or that it was decided that the clubs being built were just too good and we had to go back in time to when they didn’t perform as well. The truth of the matter is that the only thing that can make a golf course hard these days is deep rough and extremely firm, fast greens. You can’t make a course long enough to play difficult if the rough is light and the greens are soft. If the shot values aren’t extremely high, meaning that a drive off the fairway is a penalty and a ball with no spin doesn’t hold the green (remember the tourney at Trump’s new Doral design and the Honda at the Champion Course in West Palm Beach?), and a downhill putt might run 6 feet past the hole, then the scores are going to be low. So if scoring is what you are worrying about the courses can be set up to be hard, depending on the weather. But the average Tour course has to be played the rest of the year in order to be viable financially, and most people don’t enjoy playing impossible (for them) courses.
I don’t believe that low scoring is necessarily a bad thing. If you look at the scores that win tournaments there is a wide variation depending on the golf course, the weather, and the course set up. Is the equipment making golf too easy? I don’t think so. As George Low once told me, “there are no self-shooters”. If you think it’s too easy just ask Tiger. No one was complaining when he was averaging 300 yards and hitting 70 % of his fairways. Those numbers, along with a stellar short game and putter, would still dominate today. Are golf courses becoming obsolete? Ask the everyday player. I don’t think anyone is going to tell you that Carnoustie is too easy for a 5 handicapper. The world is made up of many levels of golfers. The game challenges all. Tiger’s present dilemma is a reminder that while every now and then a player makes the game look “easy”, just check back in a bit. Tiger spoiled us with an unparalleled run of great play, but look how hard he had to work to get there and to maintain it. He is paying the price now. Maybe it’s time to say “enough” with the equipment, but I think that the truth is that the claims for more and better by equipment companies are pretty much marketing at this stage. It is also well to remember that anyone can pitch a ball 30 yards or putt a ball across a green, but only a rare few can do it with constant excellence. No, I think the game is fine, and the great courses will remain great. No one tore up Merion, and if you want to play from the yardages I played from in the 1981 U.S. Open you are welcome to. Those tees are still there. Building new tees didn’t ruin the course, but it did cause Justin Rose to win with a score of +1, while David Graham won in 1981 at even par.
Join the forum discussion on this post