Opinion & Analysis
Does the Golf Ball Go Too Far?
Recently we have heard everyone discussing whether or not PGA Tour players hit the golf ball too far. Everyone from Tiger Woods to Brad Faxon, Brandel Chamblee, Mike Davis, and Wally Uihlein have weighed in with their thoughts. I myself have struggled with what side of the fence I should be on, so I wanted to learn more about it before I made a judgement.
Because I am a golf nerd, I decided to do a little digging.
My first question in all of this is, what is too far? How do we judge that the golf ball or distance has reached a point where it is diminishing the product for our viewing pleasure? How do we know if technology and distance have effected the integrity of the game? Too far is a statement of relativity. One-hundred years ago, it could have taken you 12 hours to travel 200 miles. Now you can fly Los Angeles to Sydney in that same amount of time.
When Harry Vardon was winning championships early in his career, he and every other competitor exclusively used the gutta percha golf ball with his name on it, “The Vardon Flyer.” The gutta percha was invented in 1848 and used until a new ball came into play in the early 1900’s. This new ball was the Haskell Rubber ball invented by Coburn Haskell and Betrum Work. It was the first rubber ball that was a complete game changer. Despite is obvious performance enhancements and distance gained, however, many of the top players were slow to begin to play the new ball. In fact, it took Harry Vardon almost 10 years to make the switch. I can imagine they were having the same conversations back then that we are having today.
There are tons of examples of this throughout golf history, and although there have been limitations on technology there has never been a roll back in the golf ball. The ball has always won out. So I ask myself and you why now are we claiming that the ball is going too far? I decided to compare scoring average on the PGA Tour to driving distance and golf course length. Below in the graphs you will see what I found.
First, I must say it is very difficult to find accurate data on driving distance and scoring average before 1980. From 1980 to present time, this information has been tracked by the PGA Tour, so I decided to only look at the past 37 years for an example. Since 1980, the PGA Tour median scoring average has gone from 72.3 to 70.995 in 2016. That is a difference of 1.305 shots or a change of 1.8 percent over 37 years. The lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour has gone from 69.73 to 69.17. That is a difference of o.56 strokes or an 0.8 percent of change. So yes, scoring average has gotten better. Is this because the golf ball is going farther?
Let’s now look at driving distance on the PGA Tour since 1980 in the chart below.
In 1980, the median driving distance on the PGA Tour was 256.7 yards. In 2016, it was 290.1 yards. That is a gain of 33.4 yards over 37 years, or about 1 yard per year. This is a percentage change of 13 percent. The longest hitter in 1980 averaged 274.3 yards. In 2016, the longest hitter averaged 314.5 yards, an improvement of 40.2 yards. That’s a percentage change of 14.6 percent. PGA Tour players in 2016 hit it a lot farther than they did in 1980, yet scoring averages haven’t changed much. Is this because golf course length has kept up with distance gained?
Finding course length information since 1980 was difficult. I decided to only look at the majors championships as examples, where data is more plentiful. From here, I made the decision to only use the U.S. Open and PGA Championship. Unlike the Masters, they are played on a different course every year. As for The Open Championship, it’s generally a different kind of golf where distance and strategy can hinge on the elements. I felt as though this was the best representation for all courses on the PGA Tour. In the chart below, you will find the average course length of the U.S. Open and PGA Championship from 1980-2016.
As you can see, golf courses have absolutely gotten longer. For this chart, I will compare the shortest average length (1981) to the longest average course length (2015). I am doing this because of the smaller data sample size and I believe this would more correctly illustrate the average of all PGA Tour courses. From 1981 to 2015 the golf course length increased by 791 yards (6807 yards to 7598 yards). That’s an increase of 11.6 percent.
For review, we have seen scoring average decrease by 1.8 percent, driving distance increase by 13 percent and course length increase by 11.6 percent. The difficult part about looking at this much data is always trying to interpret it. How is the data helpful, and what story does it tell?
Let’s revisit the driving distance chart one more time with some timeline reference points to paint the picture in a clearer way. These are some of the biggest technological advances in golf since 1980, and they tell a fantastic story of why we saw certain leaps in distance over a short amount of time.
- From 1991 to 2000, the decade of the introduction of bigger metal woods from the 190-cubic-centimeter Big Bertha to the 300-cubic-centimeter Titleist 975D, there was median distance increase of 4.7 percent (12.3 yards).
- Just in the year from 2000–2001, which saw the solid-core Titleist Pro V1 introduced in October of 2000, there was a median distance increase in 2.3 percent (6.3 yards).
- From 2002–2003 (TaylorMade introduced the adjustable-weight R7 driver on Tour in 2004), there was a median distance increase of 2.4 percent (6.6 yards).
In just 4 short years (2000–2003), the median distance on the PGA Tour increased by a whopping 4.9 percent (13.4 yards). Of course, there was a necessary and actionable reaction to this by the USGA when it limited the driver to 460 cubic centimeters following the 2003 season and finalized the COR limit. Since 2003, we have only seen a change in median distance of 1.2 percent, or 3.5 yards. I believe this gain in distance can be explained by better fitting and the presence of launch monitors like TrackMan on tour. There has also been more adjustability added to drivers and several upgrades in shaft technology.
What I don’t understand when looking at this data is why are we just now saying the golf ball is going too far. It seems to me we are 15 years too late in noticing.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
GolfCodeWeekly.com
Dec 8, 2017 at 1:25 pm
Yup the increases in the last 10 to 15 years are almost nil, i really do not get the problem, golf is fine, the ball is fine
HDTVMAN
Dec 8, 2017 at 11:49 am
When I play, the ball doesn’t go both far enough & straight enough! I’d also like to see a chip which incorporates my watch to find the ball when it goes anywhere but the fairway, which it tends to do!
Rich
Dec 8, 2017 at 11:04 am
Let the Ball fly.. I like distance and to see it fly far is exciting.. The course design should be made narrower deeper ruff more trees and sandtraps and more water . Make it more of a gambler course.I don’t like these -21 under scores .What ever happened to these under -10 course score total for the event? That’s why most people love the OPEN (US,British) because they are low scoring and a test of the skill of a player to play the course where does the risk worth the reward ! The tougher the better with some RISK/REWARD when ever available . I like to see the distance but also I want to see accuracy with the yardage.
Mark
Dec 8, 2017 at 8:59 am
The most interesting part of this to me is the distance gains prior to the introduction of the Pro V1. Looking at the chart it appears there is about a 20 yard gain from 93-00. There is another increase after the introduction of the Pro V1. To me this speaks to the complexity of the distance discussion. It can’t be reduced to only the ball. There are a lot of other factors involved.
Think about how much more advanced we are in all the different areas like driver tech, shafts, athletics and power generation, biomechanics, launch conditions, etc. Sure rolling the ball back could reduce median distance, but it’s far from the only factor.
RJM
Dec 7, 2017 at 9:23 pm
They have also talked about lowering the speeds in auto racing (granted, for primarily safety reasons) but how many fans would the sport lose, say, for the Indy 500, if the top speeds were limited to 180 or 200. People go to golf tournaments to watch PGA players hit the snot out of a golf ball. Knowing that DJ, Jason, or Rickie is somehow going to be “limited” off the tee or from the fairway takes a boatload of interest out of the game.
jeff
Dec 7, 2017 at 8:30 pm
#Whocares?
The longest hitters aren’t the only ones winning…
Sounds like a bunch of old codgers irritated their old antiquated records could one day be broken, and the golf channel stirring up something to talk about during the off months. Get over it. The game SHOULD be made easier, not harder, want the game to stick around a while longer and grow? Although data shows its hardly been made easier…. The game needs to progress, I understand keeping the integrity of the game, but there is a fine line of overdoing that to the point of people just saying “forget it, golf is too hard, too expensive, and way to much trouble to deal with, i just want to have fun with my buddies”
The tour players are better athletes now, the equipment is better, the ball is better, the courses are longer, firmer, and harder faster greens. Swings technique is better, availability to data and what ACTUALLY makes the ball go further or roll longer is easier to get and more readily available. It all adds up to hitting the ball further. Again, why is this a bad thing? To say they used to be hitting 3-4 irons and now wedges? Thats not a diff of 33 yards, its a diff of 100 yards. 33 yards is a 1-2 clubs max. Not to mention todays “5” iron is actually a 3 or 4 iron loft of old… its like the 30 handicapper saying he hit is 8iron 180 yards, well maybe? But more then likely its actually a juiced up 5-6 iron… but who cares? Ain’t no tour pro hitting a wedge in from 215 yards when he used to have to use a 3 wood from 250 because of a ball.
I sure hope the people complaining about the ball going to far and the game becoming too easy, are the same people still riding a horse to work, and going to the haberdashery to get a new button for their will jacket they made themselves… They better not be using Amazon, or Nordstrom.com to buy their suits…. You all better not be using any form of technology to make things easier and better.
Get over it, it doesn’t matter, the game is hard enough. Every sport progresses, the athletes become stronger, faster, smarter. Its called evolution, and with out it, the game dies.
Carl
Dec 7, 2017 at 8:03 pm
It seems like many people are opposed to the ball going too far because it benefits the longer hitters. But restricting the ball isn’t going to take that advantage away. If anything, they will still be hitting mid-long irons where shorter players will be hitting hybrids or woods.
To me, the underlying problem for many people calling for ball rollbacks is that they don’t see length as equivalent skill-wise to a great short game or solid putting. I’m not sure why though because the tolerances for mis-hits and clubface to club-path are smaller when you are swinging at higher speeds. There is inherently skill involved to hit it long AND straight, just as there is skill involved in bunker shots or putting.
henry
Dec 9, 2017 at 11:55 pm
this is spot on. should Rickie or Jordan be penalized bc they putt too well? Distance is a skill. Let the ones who can hit it far keep it that way. And the funny thing is, DJs skill would be even more celebrated bc hed be hitting 7 irons while other guys are hitting 5 woods.
Terry Medlar
Dec 7, 2017 at 7:40 pm
I’m not really concerned about the distance the pros are hitting, but if you want to make a change, instead of changing/restricting the ball, why not just tell the pros they can’t use their drivers?
Jon
Dec 7, 2017 at 3:29 pm
Much ado about nothing.
Prime21
Dec 7, 2017 at 3:28 pm
Cigarettes & Alcohol have killed people for a long time, but they still exist. $ is the answer you are looking for, plain & simple.
Antoine Steeghs
Dec 7, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I think youcanlook at the masters. What clubs are used to the green? Are the using 4 irons 40 years ago and now 8 irons?
chinchbugs
Dec 7, 2017 at 2:40 pm
Can you make a shoe stink?
Genuine question…
Uhit
Dec 7, 2017 at 2:34 pm
…and you have to remember, that driving distance is in this case carry and roll.
Latter is strongly correlated to the course conditions and setup – fast and firm fairways.
The recorded carry distances show no increase in distance since more than a decade.
CB
Dec 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm
It’s not that the ball goes too far – it goes too straight. Because they have been designed so well aerodynamically, they tend to not bend as much as the old Balata and wound type balls – which is what Johnny Miller has been saying, as opposed to just calling out the problem of the ball flying too far. With forgiving heads and forgiving balls – the modern players are getting away with a lot of mis-hits that the old ball would not do as well, that you had to be a much better ball striker back then. But this current ball technology is part and parcel of all this tech of heads, shafts and balls, and to talk about rolling it back now, after Eldrick made all his money and success during his career from 2000 on – with the very balls that he wants repealed – is a joke.
Hunter Brown
Dec 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm
Great point here and I agree with you to a point however if it were a problem I think we would see scoring average dramatically drop. If you look at swimming when the “shark suit” was introduced 49 world records were broken in 18 months. This is a dramatic drop and why they are now banned. We have not yet seen that kind of drop in scoring avg or records to suggest a ban is needed in my opinion
Andrew Cooper
Dec 7, 2017 at 2:15 pm
I agree 100%, how much straighter the new equipment goes is every bit as important. This is rarely spoken about. Courses have been lengthened proportionately with the new equipment, but have they been tightened up proportionately? I would imagine with measuring technology we could get a fairly good number on how much straighter the ball flies now. And let’s say we find it’s around 10% straighter (to pick a number) then bring in tour fairways by a similar amount.
Barry Martin
Dec 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm
Yes, we are about 15 years too late, but there were guys – like Nicklaus, Geoff Shackelford, etc. – who were calling it out back then. But there were a chorus of people, led by Uncle Wally at Titleist who said “Nothing to see here kids, everything’s fine, stop whining.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
Hunter Brown
Dec 7, 2017 at 1:41 pm
You are definitely right I remember Nicklaus talking about this a long time ago and that was kind of my point that it has always been a topic of conversation and why the USGA puts limits on how much it can improve. If we really do want to take away distance on the PGA Tour I think there is a lot easier and more simple way to do it. Just take away the tee. It would force players to use higher lofted “drivers” and would take away the advantage of hitting up on it. Now the unfortunate part about most of these solutions is that it will actually give the longer hitters even more of an advantage
Greg V
Dec 7, 2017 at 12:09 pm
Hunter, you stated that there has never been a ball roll-back, but you are mistaken.
For 1931, the USGA reduced the maximum weight of the ball from 1.62 ounces to 1.55 ounces. The players didn’t like it, as the ball didn’t go as far, and it was more affected by wind. They called it the ‘floater.”
It might be time to look at a reduction in the weight of the ball again, as today’s ball and club technology afford much more control in the wind. If the USGA could roll back the ball in 1931, they can certainly do it again soon to keep course lengths for elite golfers from approaching 8,000 yards.
Hunter Brown
Dec 7, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Thanks Greg I was unaware of this for sure so I appreciate you pointing it out. However it seems as though it only lasted a year so I would still contend the ball won out. Also what are your hindrances to 8,000 yard courses for pros? Also I have seen plenty of “shorter” courses hold the test of the pros. See Oakmont, Merion, Riviera, Shinnecock, etc. All of those cut lines in US Opens were significantly over par.
Andrew Cooper
Dec 7, 2017 at 11:55 am
Good work Hunter. The stats show that the limits on balls and clubs have worked since the early 2000s, so it’s strange to be having this debate now. An unspectacular 3.5 paces forward over the last 15 years-not what the industry would want the golfing public to know maybe, but there it is. So if the rules are working why change?
dat
Dec 7, 2017 at 11:44 am
I think it goes too far, and nothing can be done to stop it. If in 15 years the ball goes 15 yards further, that will continue to make the game less exciting to watch. Driver, wedge into every hole is just boring.
Drew Boggs
Dec 7, 2017 at 11:26 am
You can make great short par 4s like everyone wants to see and just make them absolutely brutal. Risk/Reward holes get the most attention out of any course or PGA Tour venue. Example, #10 at Riviera. Arguably the greatest short par 4 on tour, and everyone watches it. If you roll back the ball, you are hurting the game of golf. Juniors will not be as involved, and everyone wants and chases the 300+ yard drives. It’s our game today and what it will continue to be.
Bob Jacobs
Dec 7, 2017 at 11:05 am
I think we need 10 more articles on ball go too far!!