Identify
It’s fantastic that the authorities have opened and sponsored golf's distance debate. It’s engaging non-golfers and getting people to think about the state of the game as well as its overall direction.
Everyone will have an opinion. Advocates of regulating distance are keen to ensure the heritage of our great game remains intact - and rightly so! It’s one of the many things that makes our sport unique. Nobody wants to see beautiful courses of old become obsolete or new courses become excessively long or penal (think US Open setup).
Equally, manufacturers, players and coaches don’t want their creativity, innovation, ingenuity and diligence to go unrewarded. When all is said and done we're all in this together - to make golf BETTER!
I feel the question raised by the R&A and USGA is a deeper one than simply, “are the best of the best hitting the ball too far?” The combination of equipment, physicality, psychology and technical refinement is certainly helping players at the highest levels achieve feats we’ve never seen before, but is that a bad thing? Sprinters no longer run on cinder tracks, and footballers no longer use heavy leather boots and balls. Every sport has to move with the times, as well as honour its traditions.
I believe golf stands at a unique crossroad. What this discussion poses is, in essence, a shifting of the challenge point for professionals (the longer hitters especially) via equipment constraints, but do they need to?
Define
I’ve read the reports and seen the data but I like to do my own research:
Are the players hitting it further? If so, how much?
If an increase does exist, what is its influence on scoring?
I’ve compared the driving distance and scoring averages of the top 100 players on the PGA and LPGA tour over the last 10 seasons to answer these questions (see data at the foot of the article).
I think the data speaks for itself, and bear in mind these are the best players in the world that have access to the best equipment, coaching, physical training, statisticians, etc.
My thoughts are that while there may be a small incremental increase in distance (more so in the ladies game), I see nothing major and whatever there is, it’s having no influence on players’ ability to shoot lower scores.
More to the point, is distance a bigger concern than encouraging participation? When looking at figures from 2008-2018, the data indicates a worrying decline of 0.22 million (5.08%) golfers in Europe and 3.41 million (12.35%) in the USA (see data at the foot of the article).
Is golf's distance debate simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
Explore
Instead of being overly concerned about distance at the highest levels, I believe we need to address the major barriers:
Shouldn’t we be focusing on growing the game instead of refining one recognised format? We should learn from other sports. Why not take a leaf out of cricket’s book, for example, and develop multiple formats that use different equipment?
Increasing and encouraging participation goes hand in glove with enhancing multimedia spectatorship. The latter providing by far the largest revenue while various formats, leagues and competitions provide the lifeblood. Football, rugby, and tennis are obvious examples, but snooker and darts came from nowhere thanks to colour TV.
If we create multiple formats that require subtlety different equipment we create multiple markets that get manufactures on board by sparking their innovation (as well as create additional revenue streams) vs restricting a singular market that stifles creativity and limits revenue.
This approach also honours and respects the massive contribution manufacturers make to the game, and when all is said and done, more money circulating the golf industry means growth. Restrictions stifle the game and perpetuate the decline in participation.
Action
Picture this, 6-year-old Katie and her parents go for a round at their local course. They play primarily for fun to enjoy time together. However, with the current equipment, formats and course layout (only three tees: ladies, gents and medal) they start each hole from different locations and hit their approach shots from different places, massively inhibiting their enjoyment.
On top of this, the ladies tees make each hole far too long for Katie and her Mum to realistically make a par (the perceived acceptable score), which sets the challenge point way too high for them compared with Dad.
After six holes of toil, Katie and her Mum get totally fed up and can’t wait for the pain to end, which is a shame because golf is one of the few sports where people of all ages and abilities can enjoy a (competitive) game together.
Yes, there are strategies to somewhat nullify this scenario:
1. Establish forward tees to shorten hole length
2. Establish a personal par for each hole (lean more about personal par HERE)
3. Utilise the handicap system
However, it still doesn’t maximise their enjoyment.
Imagine this alternative: All three of them play from the ladies (or red tee). Dad plays the “short ball” and Katie and Mum play the “long ball”. This means they play from the same tees and hit their approach shots from (roughly) the same place. Straight away we can see how much more sociable this makes the experience.
So when we consider most play the game for enjoyment (initially at least), surely this is the best reason for any equipment regulations (especially when said regulations are coupled with world class course reconfiguration and construction from the likes of Mike Clayton and DJ Russell), not to stop the best hitting the ball too far?
Look Back
I am somewhat biased as I spend a lot of my time coaching juniors and my home base (Archerfield Links) has just undergone a major driving range reconfiguration that not only enhances our practice experience, but on selected evenings can be utilised as a short course (maximum hole length is 130 yards) with five orientations. This significant investment has primarily been done to serve one purpose - to enhance our member experience and encourage their families to be part of the club.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating every golf club construct a short course as that would be unreasonable considering the state of the game, however, placing additional tee markers further down their fairways (and removing the ladies/gents/medal connotations) thus shortening the holes and providing alternative start points seems like a good low cost alternative?
This, coupled with creative thinking to establish new format competitions, particularly attractive to multimedia, while remaining relevant to club golf, seems like a good approach to at least start to right this sinking ship.
What do you think?
Oliver C. Morton
Data
Subscribe