Opinion & Analysis
Clark: Power golf is the new reality
It’s not an exaggeration to say that professional golf may never be the same after “the Bryson DeChambeau revolution.” Before we get to how much he is changing the professional game, let’s give a big hats-off to Bryson. With the Tiger era coming to an end, professional golf needed a shot in the arm, and Bryson is poised to give it just that. If all is legal here, and we have no reason to believe it isn’t, we may be witnessing the biggest change we have seen in a long while on tour.
Saying that Bryson DeChambeau is long is like saying that water is wet. He is testing the limits of clubhead speed in professional golf. It is an experiment Bryson is willing to take on and use the PGA Tour as his laboratory. If he can continue to play at the highest level with clubhead speeds of 130 mph and ball speeds approaching 195-200 mph, a revolution in professional golf is clearly underway. There has always been a clear distinction between playing golf and long-driving golf. The speed the LDA guys generate is designed for one purpose: to hit the ball as far as possible—and hope to get one out of six in the grid. In other words, don’t worry about the foul balls. We thought these speeds could never be achieved in playing on tour. And although there is still a gap, Bryson is closing it.
DeChambeau is unique to say the least, but we cannot be so naive to think that he is the only professional who will test these waters. This is almost guaranteed to start a trend on tour. There are bigger, stronger athletes playing professional golf now (and every other sport), that much we know. But the fact that one man has stepped this far ahead 0f the field should and very likely will be a source of motivation for many others in the tournament game.
Muscle equals distance is the future of professional golf, and it is apparent that golf training is moving from the range to the gym. But even DeChambeau’s admirable discipline will not stay unique to him very long. There are and will be others ready to take up the gauntlet now that he has laid it down. The era of skinny flat-bellies may soon be a thing of the past. What effect will this have on the game itself? This is the current buzz in golf. There will soon be another.
One consideration sure to arise is how will golf course designs and/or renovations factor into this revolution? Let’s be clear: There is not a par 4 in golf where Bryson needs more than a driver/wedge or 9-iron to reach any green. A 5-degree driver followed by a 45-degree wedge to travel 500 yards is not something I ever thought I’d see-but it’s here and it’s not going away. Fans love the long ball and sponsors love fans. My question is, what do the governing bodies think of it, and what will they do about it. Is 20 under par OK with them? Knowing what the USGA does to their courses for the U.S. Open, it seems not. Will the PGA Tour begin to question current course designs? The R&A seems to think that the natural hazards and weather conditions are challenging enough, but even there when “hell bunker” and “beardies” are no longer in play, even the old boys might start re-thinking this whole thing.
Here are the Current USGA recommendations for something called “par” for men and women respectively.
| Par 3 | Up to 250 yards | Up to 210 yards |
| Par 4 | 251 to 470 yards | 211 to 400 yards |
| Par 5 | 471 to 690 yards | 401 to 575 yards |
| Par 6 | 691 yards+ | 576 yards+ |
These are great guidelines for most of us, but they are totally antiquated for tournament professionals. Based on what Bryson is doing now and others are soon to be, these guidelines could be at least 50 yards off for professionals. I’m not saying that lower scoring due to tremendous distance increases is a bad thing, in and of itself. Athletes (Bryson in particular) should be rewarded for all their hard work, but the general idea of golf courses being built to challenge players will soon need to reconsidered. Fairway bunker positioning is already obsolete on many tournament venues, and “rough” is less of an issue when the top players are plowing the ball out with 45-degree wedges and grooves that will spin the ball anyway.
Some say it’s still a game of getting the ball in the hole and it matters not how far they hit it or how low they go. I agree, but what I’m saying is that standing on the tee, players have always had two variables to consider: distance to carry or avoid hazards and positioning. One of those is no longer a consideration, and the other is becoming less of a factor all the time. It mattered when fairway bunkers were in play and the right angle to get at the hole locations when the guys were hitting middle irons into them. It matters much less so with 45-50 degree wedges and with the ball coming in from an outer space trajectory; In other words “shotmaking” is going the way of the mashie niblick. Take a few examples: Say, Augusta National…The bunker on the right side of #1 is not in play. The bunker on the right side of #8 is not in play. It’s not unlikely that the bunker on the left side of #18 is or soon will be out of play, and so on…This drastically changes the mentality of how to play those holes.
Often I hear, “Yeah, but the hoop is still 10 feet high in basketball, the football field is still 100 yards, and baseball parks still have a 400+ ft. centerfield fence”. But here is the difference: Other sports are played against opposing players; the game of golf is played against the course. The field of play itself is the challenge, provides the defense, the other players be damned. And when the clubs, the golf ball and the bigger stronger players reach previously unheard of distances, we could easily lose what I call “the chess” aspect of the game; thinking about hazards, approach shot positions and so on.
Note: This is a professional tournament golfers only concern. The rest of us have our hands full the way things are.
I am not objecting to lower scores due to better athletes and better equipment-hats off to Bryson for stepping up his game and starting the revolution. All I’m saying is golf has always been a challenge of how to manage a golf course—plan the entire course out from the first tee to the 18th green and that has long been its charm. Watching Hogan manage a golf course was watching a Van Gogh paint a masterpiece. I am concerned that the “bombs away” approach caused by power and equipment is changing that, and for the game to continue as we have always known it, golf courses will soon need to adapt to the changes. I, for one, would like strategy to stay part of tournament golf.
All of that said, it will be interesting to watch the ripple effect of the mad scientist of golf’s experiment.
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...
Ben
Jul 13, 2020 at 8:48 am
The interesting thing is you have guys like Gary Woodland, Tony Finau and such who have the ability to swing over 130+ and get 200+ ballspeeds but felt they needed to slow things down a bit to keep it on the planet and play at the highest level. Seeing videos of when Gary Woodland first came out or when Tony F was on Big break, they were as long as BDC is now. I saw a video recently of Tony Finau ramping up his speed and topped out at 206 mph. Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka are a couple more who may have that kind of potential. Just going out and practicing a harder swing. None of the guys I mentioned ever tried a 5 degree driver either. That will really be a difference (If you hit up with a 5 degree, you get a more efficient strike because you lower spin loft), Tony Finau goes out with a 5 degree driver, hitting way up at 206 mph? Bryson is showing these guys what is possible on tour.
no thanks
Jul 13, 2020 at 5:05 am
I heard the same thing when Cam Champ showed up. The overreaction on this stuff is ghastly.
dat
Jul 12, 2020 at 10:51 pm
Bring on the 10,000 yard courses. Should be fun. Do we need another planet to play on?
Brandon
Jul 11, 2020 at 11:44 pm
We will see if the double chin and beer gut body will take a toll on his joints.
Happy Gilmore
Jul 11, 2020 at 11:27 pm
How about they grow the rough out agian? If you have ever tried hitting any iron out of rough thats more than 4 inches thick its not easy. I dont know why people keep preaching longer courses. It isnt possible to lengthen 95 percent of the courses now days. Just look at the ryder cup in france. Shorter course but the top players knew the rough was not where they wanted to be!! Just grow out the rough!!
Dennis Clark
Jul 12, 2020 at 10:29 am
That is one way for sure, reconfigure bunkers is another
Chuck
Jul 12, 2020 at 7:22 pm
So change the golf courses, instead of the golf balls?
That’s nuts.
And an insult to the great historic championship golf courses and their architects.
dd
Jul 13, 2020 at 4:11 am
Are you saying Augusta national golf course is insulting themselves? Do you even know golf clubs close down few months prior to the tournament to “change the golf courses”
dd
Jul 13, 2020 at 4:11 am
*club
Acemandrake
Jul 11, 2020 at 8:24 pm
1. Bryson was a good, complete golfer who added length. He was not a bomber who later got good at the overall game. This is important for young golfers to know. (NOTE TO SELF: IMPROVE SHORT GAME)
2. Dry, firm conditions where balls run toward trouble & away from preferred positions may be the last line of defense for courses. (BRINGS BACK THE “CHESS” ELEMENT)
Frank
Jul 11, 2020 at 6:01 pm
Who has the most sub-60 rounds in PGA Tour history? Jim Furyk at 110 MPH, sometimes even less than that. It should also be mentioned that although his 58 and 59 were on less than par 72 courses, his 59 at Conway Farms is the highest stroke differential to the field average in an individual round of ALL TIME. Mic drop.
Dennis
Jul 11, 2020 at 9:02 pm
Jim has had a nice 17-win, 1-major career. Tom Kite of his era.
benseattle
Jul 13, 2020 at 5:59 pm
Better pick up that mic, Lenny. Your point is irrelevant to the issue at hand. We’re not talking about a once-in-a-lifetime hot round — (in Furyk’s case two rounds) we’re discussing the making obsolete most, if not all, golf courses visited by the PGA Tour. We’re talking about the handful of super-long players — with MANY more to come — having a distinct advantage over average professionals. We’re talking about the complete ELIMINATION of accuracy, placement and strategy in golf, qualities once ESSENTIAL to winning at any level. Furyk getting off a 58 and a 59 simply means an outstanding player was nearly flawless THAT DAY. In the future — meaning the next year or two — bunters such as Furyk, Zach Johnson, Steve Stricker, Cory Pavin, etc. will still enjoy fine professional careers…. but they’ll do it folding sweaters in the pro shop — NOT by winning big on Tour.
Rich
Jul 11, 2020 at 5:38 pm
I’m sorry, but when has distance NOT been the issue for the best players? The lineage is strong: Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Norman, Woods and Mickelson, Johnson, BDC. They all hit it long.
Who since 1960 has dominated over a serious period of time and not been a bomber (relative to his times)?
Frank
Jul 11, 2020 at 6:06 pm
Um, Lee Trevino won the scoring title 4 times in the early 70s, including 3 consecutive times from 1970 to 1972 and that’s when Jack Nicklaus was in his prime. He still won another scoring title in 1980 after being wrecked by lightning in 1975 and before that accident happened, he was on pace to winning more than 10 majors. And he wasn’t long.
Frank
Jul 11, 2020 at 6:08 pm
Lee Trevino.
Gordy
Jul 11, 2020 at 5:29 pm
His body is going to break down..you can’t lift and swing like that for 20-30 years. And once they get into tournaments ie: majors swinging like that won’t last under pressure.
Rich
Jul 11, 2020 at 5:44 pm
Do you have any examples of people who could not do it?
Do you have evidence that longer players choke more in majors?
I doubt it.
Gordy
Jul 11, 2020 at 6:36 pm
He’s the first player to swing like this..example of players who starting bulking up and bodies breaking down..Tiger and Rory
Jay
Jul 12, 2020 at 5:18 pm
Tiger and Rory really aren’t that big at all. They look like average guys who lift weights a few times per week. Rory has had no significant injuries because of his “bulking”. Tiger has had back problems, which is more likely from the countless golf swings he has taken in his life instead of adding some upper body muscle. To the contrary, you can probably make a better argument that the guys who lift weights are more likely to prevent injury because they are strengthening their low back and abs as well.
Gordy
Jul 12, 2020 at 8:18 pm
Rory missed a bunch of time from a rub injury from lifting. He even Admitted that lifting did it. Tigers back issue is from hitting balls in a bulked up body. And yes I can from experience of power lifting and being around weight lifting my whole life. It catches up with you, epically swinging the club thousands of times a day.
Dani
Jul 11, 2020 at 3:12 pm
I think it’s great for golf. Look at it from a micro and macro aspect. At the majors let the majors punish anything in the rough . Shorten fairway width grow the rough shin high first cut. Etc. Put bunkers out at 330 carry etc. in the tourneys no one Usually watches (like rocket mortgage etc) fans are tuned in. Let long ball hitters destroy courses and tune fans in for the tourneys that don’t matter. The majors can defend themselves.
MhtLion
Jul 11, 2020 at 2:38 pm
I agree completely. Bryson single handily changed the professional golf. A brain changed what hundreds of muscle heads never could because they never deviate from the norm. It’s a such pleasant irony to see all these career athletes who pretty much did nothing but golf from their junior high years got out drove by a scientist. They hated Bryson for trying new things. They made a fun of Bryson for thinking. They ridiculed Bryson for seeking a new way to do something old. At the end of the day, they were the p***ies. Bryson is the man.
Bryson will leave a big mark like the first Titleist Pro V1. That ball changed the game once. Now Bryson just changed it again. Funny thing, they are both products of ‘thinking’.
Lean back B I got you
Jul 11, 2020 at 11:04 pm
You got a little Bryson sauce right there. Need a napkin?
Tiger
Jul 11, 2020 at 11:38 pm
Bryson hasent changed the game, Tiger did. He has everyone chasing longer drives since they were kids, many are just now showing up. The top college players now can ALL swing in the 120s if they want. Just look at the social media of top juniors. 350 yd bombs are no problem. I play with some ASU and U of A golfers and for them all there carry with driver is around 300. This is the norm for a Pac 12 player now days. Bryson is long thats for sure but his game didnt change it like Tiger. Tiger has done more than than people think, and thats saying something
Dennis Clark
Jul 12, 2020 at 10:42 am
Tiger changed the PROFESSIONAL game in many ways. His sheer brilliance mostly; the greatest player ever for 10-12 years. I mention that in the article. But soon his reign will end and the professional game needs new energy. BDC might be that. He’s not Tiger, but nobody is. But I grew up in the era of Arnold Palmer who changed ALL golf, not just professional golf. Everything changes…
Steve
Jul 14, 2020 at 7:01 am
Scientist? He’s a college dropout.
Jay
Jul 11, 2020 at 2:17 pm
Let’s just give this some time and see how Bryson does over the next few years. He’s playing well now but will he stand the test of time?
Dennis
Jul 11, 2020 at 2:49 pm
Yea he’s a determined young mad scientist though. And one helluva player. You’re right, we shall see
Rich
Jul 11, 2020 at 5:40 pm
Six wins in three years.