Opinion & Analysis

How Golf Can Learn from the NBA’s 3-Point Line

Published

7 years ago

Mar 8, 2017

For more than a decade, the hot topic of conversation in golf has been driving distance. Members of the media have been asking the USGA and the R&A to address the issue of driving distance and the governing bodies have essentially refused to address it to any degree… until now.

The USGA recently released their statistical analysis on driving distance and how it’s affecting the game. Their results? It’s not. The USGA claims that the increase of driving distance has been marginal since 2003 and should not cause alarm.

As soon as the report was published — you can read the report in full right here — golf writers and analysts took to Twitter, Facebook, and the airwaves, to discuss the conclusions the USGA provided.

I think, much like the sentiment with anchored putters, the real concern is that the fabric of the game will change, or already has changed and that it’s not the same game it was 20 years ago.

As the discussion ensues about driving distance and how the USGA is handling it (or ignoring it), I think the discussion is going in the wrong direction. The primary argument is that iconic courses are becoming obsolete because there is only so much real estate for those courses to lengthen. Or that it’s becoming more and more difficult to build new courses that can cater to the PGA Tour. The second half of that argument is that, if they continue to lengthen courses, then they are essentially eliminating players who don’t average 300 yards or more off the tee. At this point, I agree with the sentiment that courses don’t need to be any longer. But there is more to the story.

I think, much like the sentiment with anchored putters, the real concern is that the fabric of the game will change, or already has changed and that it’s not the same game it was 20 years ago. It’s a game that doesn’t reward shot making and short-game abilities, or the best putters on the planet. It’s a game that rewards power and the “bomb and gouge” mentality. And the argument is the bomb and gouge mentality is bad for the game.

I disagree. The game has changed because that’s what games do. They evolve.

Before we talk about the evolution of the 3-point line, let’s talk about course conditions. As lawn care advanced over the decades, golf courses have changed dramatically from tee to green. Greens haven’t always been 12 or 13 on the Stimpmeter week in and week out. With the change of the green speeds came the change of putting strokes. It also changed the way players had to fly the ball into the green for approach shots. Faster and firmer greens meant that it was harder to get the ball to stop. Grooves in irons and wedges changed, as did the ball.

The same thing happened to the fairways. When the greens became firmer and faster, so did the fairways. In a 2011 article from Golf Digest, David Toms talks about this at great length.

“[The tour has] tried to do the best they can to get the fairways firmer,” said Toms. “Guys wanted firm, fast conditions. That’s what the tour’s supposed to do. That’s part of their setup plan. So if the weather stays dry, I know they’ve tried to get them to firm up. Perhaps that translates into overall distance being a little longer.”

So, my question is, why is all the focus on the equipment? Rioting about equipment is a fruitless effort. Changing the entire marketing principle for the golf industry — Distance! Distance! Distance! — is infinitely more difficult than trying to change the set-up plan for the tour.

If people really believe that distance on the professional circuits is a problem, then we should be talking about course conditions. Let the fairways and the rough grow a little higher so that the ball doesn’t run 40 yards on a high draw. If a player wants his ball to run out, make him do it from the tee box by controlling his trajectory. A simpler solution is altering course conditions, but what if distance isn’t actually a problem? I mean, we’re really only talking about 1,000 players, right? Not the 30 million amateur golfers.

So, let’s think about it this way.

In 1967 there was no 3-point basket in the NBA, NCAA, or high school basketball. There was, however, a 3-point basket in the American Basketball Association. In an attempt to compete with the NBA, the ABA tried to spice things up in their league and one of the main ways they did that was by adding the 3-point line.

The coaches at the helm of ABA teams had coached basketball their entire careers based on a game without 3-point shots. Throwing in a basket that counted more than any other on the floor caused the coaches to rethink their entire philosophy of how the game was played. It caused the strategic problems that even lead to one game being decided by a 92-foot shot just before the buzzer. The problem was, the score before the shot was 116-118. The players on the team that made the basket didn’t realize they’d won because they weren’t thinking about the 3-pointer.

The ABA would be relatively short lived and eventually merge with the NBA. And like all established organizations, the NBA was slow to adopt change, but it finally added the 3-point line in 1979. And though it didn’t happen overnight, the game would change drastically over the course of the next three decades.

It took nearly 40 years for the game to evolve into a game where the 3-point shot was built into the repertoire of the best players in the game.

In the days before the 3-point line, basketball was played as close to the rim as possible. Big guys like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain dominated the game down low. It was physical and focused on driving in the paint and scoring either by short lay-ups or drawing the foul inside.

When the 3-point line was added, it gave smaller guys, who didn’t stand a chance at the physical game, an opportunity to score big points from beyond the arc. In the ’96-’97 season, the leading scorer was Michael Jordan; in that season he made 111 three-point shots. In the 03’-’04 season, the leading scorer was Kevin Garnett; that season he made 88 three-point shots. In the ’15-’16 season, the leading scorer was James Harden; he made 236 three-points shots. The second leading scorer in that season was Steph Curry who made 402.

It took nearly 40 years for the game to evolve into a game where the 3-point shot was built into the repertoire of the best players in the game. It takes time for people to accept change, but it will happen.

Maybe that’s the thing that has golf enthusiasts scared; maybe they don’t want the game to change, but the problem is that it’s inevitable. It’s already happened. It changed when players stopped putting hickory shafts in their irons and using steel. It changed when players stopped using putters that looked like 1-irons and started using the mallet. It changed when Gene Sarazen invented the sand wedge.

The game has evolved, but just because we see players hitting it 330 yards, does that mean those players are the one’s winning all the tournaments? Let’s look at some numbers.

Between 2003 and 2015 the average driving distance of all winners in that period (a total of 500 events) was 293.3 yards. The average driving distance on tour was 287.8 yards. That means that, on average, the winner of a PGA Tour event was driving the ball 5 yards longer than the rest of the field. But the problem is not the average distance; it’s the top 10 percent that has everybody worried. It’s also not the majority of the tour players who take that average to new heights. What we’re seeing are about 10-12 guys that hit it over 20 yards longer than the tour average.

Can we really make huge changes in the game because we have about 15 players that are just that much longer than the rest of the field? I don’t know. Maybe we can, but like so many have said about the USGA Driving Distance Report, “It doesn’t pass the eye test.”

Out of the 500 events between ‘03 and ‘15, 160 winners averaged fewer yards off the tee than the tour average. And you have to remember that in that same span 44 events were won by Tiger Woods, 21 events were won by Phil Mickelson, 23 were won by Vijay Singh and nine were won by Dustin Johnson. Four players account for nearly 20 percent of the wins between ’03 and ’15, and all four of those players hit the ball longer than the tour average (by about 11 yards).

From of the remaining 403 events, 160 averaged less than the tour average in driving distance. That gives us right at 40 percent of the winners on tour from ’03 to ’15 averaged less than the tour average in driving distance. Even further, out of all 500 events in that time, only five players averaged more than 303.3 yards. That’s one percent of the winners averaging over 303.3 yards.

The current proposed solutions are as follows: increase the ball size (or dial the ball back) and increase club regulations. Both of those solutions are going to punish the average golfer, which is completely the wrong thing to do. The golf industry is unlike most other sports; it doesn’t make its money from the professionals, it makes its money from the amateur. So why punish the target audience for revenue? (A surefire way to hurt the game.)

The solution is much simpler. Alter the course set up. If you’re tired of players being able to hit every par-five in two, then grow the rough up and narrow the fairway at 300 yards. Dustin Johnson didn’t win at Oakmont last year because he hit the ball further than everyone else, he won the U.S. Open because drove the ball in the fairway and hit his irons close to the hole. If you look at DJ’s stats from last year, from the rough at 150-175 yards, he was T164. From 50-125 yards, he was T103.

What does that tell you? If the long hitters drive the ball in the rough, they have a harder time getting the ball close to the hole. Like everyone else.

Dustin Johnson didn’t win at Oakmont last year because he hit the ball further than everyone else, he won the U.S. Open because drove the ball in the fairway and hit his irons close to the hole.

The USGA and the PGA Tour are offended that players are hitting the ball 330 yards. And they’re even more upset by the fact that there are 30 guys who can hit it that far. That’s a PGA Tour and USGA problem; it’s not a player or a manufacturer problem. Up to this point, those entities have tried to solve “their” problem in the least creative way possible: lengthening courses. It’s the wrong way to look at it. It’s also the wrong way to look at it by assuming it’s actually a problem. Things change. Games evolve. Players get better. Equipment gets better.

So what are we so worried about? If the score of the average tournament is 20- or 21-under par, who really cares? There are only a couple of times a year that anybody wants to really see PGA Tour players struggle; the U.S. Open and the Open Championship. And players struggle for completely different reasons at those tournaments. The rest of the year just let the drama be that players are trying to beat each other. Not that they are trying to beat the course.

Let’s stop whining and enjoy watching the best players in the world do what they do. Use the ProTracer function more on your coverage. Let’s take advantage of the technology we have and show the types of shots players could hit when they are stuck behind the tree and stop complaining that they’re behind a tree because they tried to cut the corner and failed.

Driving distance is only a problem for the people who refuse to admit that the game is going to change. It’s only a problem for those who refuse to be creative with course setup and think the only way to even the playing field is to lengthen the course. If anything, they are only reinforcing what they call a problem. Players have to hit it farther to be consistently competitive if you stretch all the courses to 7,500 yards or longer. It’s a circular logic that has created an entire subcategory of “searchable problems” in golf. We don’t need any more problems, we already have the most difficult one to overcome: expense.

We’re trying to solve a problem that is only a problem based on the data points for 0.01 percent of the players who play the game. In any other industry that would be considered lunacy. Like the 3-point line changed the way basketball was played, so too will distance in golf. It’s inevitable.

You can scrutinize my calculations here.

Your Reaction?

LIKE329
LEGIT45
WOW8
LOL3
IDHT1
FLOP8
OB4
SHANK47

Related Topics:

Up Next

An Open Letter to Gear Heads

Don't Miss

Tech Tuesday: The Future of Launch Monitors?

Adam Crawford

Adam Crawford is a writer of many topics but golf has always been at the forefront. An avid player and student of the game, Adam seeks to understand both the analytical side of the game as well as the human aspect - which he finds the most important. You can find his books at his website, chandlercrawford.com, or on Amazon.

46 Comments

Sean

Mar 11, 2017 at 7:12 pm

I never did understand all this talk of dialing back the equipment. All they need to do is change the course set up.

However, networks probably feel this would not make for compelling TV. So fairways are cut and rolled, rough isn’t penal, etc. When the professionals play under very soggy conditions I note that many drives are in the 265-275 range.

Reply Report comment
Ronald Montesano

Mar 11, 2017 at 12:34 pm

One of the points you’re missing is the flexibility of course set-up, contrasted with the inflexibility of an NBA court. Greens DON’T have to stimp at 12-13. Rough does not have to be set to a certain height. And most importantly, the 3-point arc of the NBA does not impact playgrounds and gymanasia, where pick-up games are played across the world.

Shift to golf, where courses and clubs watch the tours religiously, then often seek to emulate course set-ups, to the degradation of the game (which includes loss of players for whom the game is too challenging.)

The Tours need to look beyond their own, money-making role in this, and recognize the negative impact of what they do, on the people and their courses. We need enhance participation, not rough. We need to speed up play, not green speeds. If the tour does it, zealous club members and course denizens will compel superintendents to match wits. The regular golfer loses.

Reply Report comment
Greg V

Mar 10, 2017 at 9:48 am

“The current proposed solutions are as follows: increase the ball size (or dial the ball back) and increase club regulations. Both of those solutions are going to punish the average golfer, which is completely the wrong thing to do.”

I happen to disagree with that premise. If average golfers move up a tee or two, they will not be punished by a dialed-back ball.

They will simply be playing a shorter course, and will likely take less time to play it. That could be a good thing, no?

Reply Report comment
carl spackler

Mar 10, 2017 at 8:41 am

In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, ‘Au revoir, gopher’.

Reply Report comment
S Hitter

Mar 9, 2017 at 6:36 pm

THE dumbest article ever on WRX, worse than some of the cheerleading articles sniffing Michelle Wie’s backside.
Look here http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golfs-lowest-rounds-58s-and-59s-tour
You’re worried about the bomb and gougers, now? Now? Sam Snead was known to be extremely long during his time, especially in his earlier days, and people were astounded. Nobody stopped him – well, they tried to, when he tried to putt croquet-style. But nobody took away his length – and he was doing it with the old equipment with fluffy balls!
This game has never been about a level playing field. You take it for what it is, and if you don’t have length or power, but a good enough short game and are very straight, well, you can skin this cat in many ways. But dominance is dominance. That’s the same in every sport.

Reply Report comment
- Adam Crawford
  
  Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 am
  
  I think you missed the actual statement the article was trying to make. It’s trying to say that it’s not actually a problem, but if it were, the solution is much simpler than changing the ball or the equipment.
  
  Reply Report comment
Tom

Mar 9, 2017 at 10:03 am

I’ve been curious about this issue for a while, and the way different people view it. A: golfers are more athletic now than ever, and that, combined with some increase in equipment and ball features has probably lead to some form of increased distance by the majority of the field. But, looking back, Tiger hit it a mile before all of the crazy equipment talk set in, and John Daily hit it a mile longer, well before all of this.

The faster fairways has been my question as well, and why that’s not to blame. It’s not too typical on any course I play, to get 30-40 yards of roll. Every year I play a course within a day or two after the tour comes through, and it’s incredible how much faster the fairways are. The greens pretty typically do run between 11 and 13, so that stays the same, just on the higher end, but the fairways are like run ways compared to the way the course plays the rest of the year. I think that makes more of a difference than equipment, since equipment might account for what, 20 yards? I’m not really talking about the comparison of today’s gear to persimmon woods, but I’d be surprised to see DJ, Rory, Bubba, etc. lose more than 10-20 yards off the tee with any driver they try. Iron wise, most these guys use MB’s, and you’re going to hit one MB just as far as any other MB.

Reply Report comment
Tal

Mar 9, 2017 at 4:11 am

I think the anaogy is the wrong way round; this dialing back distance is like taking the 3 point line away, not adding it. I don’t think professional basketball would be as it is today without that line. Nor eould golf be anywhere near as interesting if you couldn’t marvel at the distance or ball speed of the pros. I think it would really lose the spark if DJ was hitting it, say, 280.
Part of the excitement of professional golf is watching how powerfully some guys hit it and if the ball is dialed back, the shorter hitters will still be shorter and the longer guys won’t draw as much of a crowd. Plus, plenty of great players would lose one of the elements that made them great on the first place. How is that fair?
DJ isa great example; always one of the longest but didn’t win a major until his wedges and putting improved. Distance doesn’t win by itself as you have to capitalise on the advantage.

So, this isn’t the same as adding the 3 point line. How fair would it be to Steph Curry if 3 pointers were taken back out of the game?

Reply Report comment
David W.

Mar 9, 2017 at 3:41 am

I think the author is onto something here – why was the WGC in Mexico so great to watch??? Because the course was narrow and many good players were in the trees.

Reply Report comment
Mat

Mar 8, 2017 at 2:10 pm

This analogy is only relevant if the Tour started playing Modified Stableford. I’m not opposed to that, but that’s a “3-point line”. You’re rewarding lower percentage changes with more points. The rest of this argument is irrelevant. Statistically, the game has changed, courses have changed, and it’s disingenuous to talk about “course setups”. Major changes are expensive, if at all possible. Sure, you can cut the grass a little higher, but if you do that, you’re just sounding like a whiner. So much for “Let’s stop whining…”

Reply Report comment
Chris B

Mar 8, 2017 at 1:22 pm

I love how the usga are using stats from 2003, this doesn’t show the true impact the ball has made. Golf is becoming boarring to watch, everyone just smashes it as far and as high as they can. Some guys just hit it further. The true craft of controlling your ball is being lost. Modern equipment is more beneficial to the longer hitters.

Reply Report comment
Luke

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:31 am

How about they play golf in normal conditions and stop following the sun round the globe. They play in high altitude climates. Come and play in the windy wet UK won’t be hitting it 350+

Reply Report comment
Greg V

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:13 am

Stupid article. The NBA didn’t change the size of the court, they didn’t change the ball, and they didn’t change the height of the basket. It is basically the same game with different scoring.

In golf, the ball changed, the clubs changed and the courses had to change. Same scoring. The result of the equipment and athletes’ changes required that the courses be made longer, which has increased the amount of time required to play.

Just go back to the US Amateur before steel shafts (1927). Every match was 36 holes. Why? Because the ball didn’t go as far (and the clubs were heavy and wood), so the courses were shorter and the players could play 36 every day.

I conclude: the better the equipment, the longer the courses. The longer the courses, the more time that it takes to play, or conversely, the less golf that we can play in the same amount of time. Why do we put up with that? Because we have egos and we want to hit the ball farther. That is self-defeating if you want to play more golf.

By the way, a basketball game takes about 3 hours. A hockey game takes about 3 hours. A football game takes 3 to 3-1/2 hours. Golf, at 4-1/2 to 5 hours takes way too much time.

Reply Report comment
RI_Redneck

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:13 am

The part of this article that really stands out to me is the firmness of the fairways and the lack of sufficient rough. It would not be difficult to have CERTAIN sections of the fairway that allow more rollout while having other sections less firm. So rollout will only come for those who are accurate enough to hit the right spot. Bomb and gouge is popular because there’s no penalty to hitting out of the fairway. Increase the rough length for pro tournaments and we will see them focusing more on hitting fairways and the competition will be tighter. I also think the gallery should be kept out of the rough nearer the course so that it stays at a suitable depth and is not trampled down.

BT

Reply Report comment
- LD
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 1:01 pm
  
  Interesting idea, sort of like the professional oil patterns on the PBA.
  
  Reply Report comment
Steve

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:08 am

Lengthening courses results in longer rounds and greater maintenance costs. The ball goes longer for higher swing speeds and does not benefit most amateurs. The area that seems to evade discussion is that the ball goes straighter. The internal structure and dimple patterns on today’s ball lead to ideal high launch low spin drives. You want to bring some back shot making, bring back the balata spin rates on today’ ball.

Reply Report comment
JohnFS

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:37 am

How about Jack’s idea of having a “tour” ball. I’ve always thought that was the best solution.

Reply Report comment
Eddie

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:34 am

The speed at which a ball rebounds off the face of a driver has been capped since 2003. Any distance gains are due to golfers swinging faster, fairways being firmer, or dialing in perfect launch and spin rates.

The big difference is the golfers. They are younger, stronger, and more athletic then at any other point in history. How is this any different than Palmer or Nicklaus dominating with their relative length back in the day? Length has always been an advantage.

Reply Report comment
- Greg V
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 4:39 pm
  
  Length will always be an advantage, no matter what ball is played.
  
  In essence you are right, distance gains since 2003 have been about 1 yard a year, due to lower spinning driver heads and better shafts. What the distance study fails to capture is the inordinate distance gain by equipment from about 1990 to 2003 due to solid balls, titanium large driver heads and graphite shafts. The perfect storm.
  
  Reply Report comment
Eric

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:20 am

So if the fairways are rolling faster, why aren’t Launch Monitors requiring that not only WIND be adjusted and SLOPE/ELEVATION to calculate proper distances, but also fairway firmness to account for ball spin/speed meeting firmer or softer ground? We’d get more accurate yardages and I’m guessing a lot more amateurs would be longer when measured on Trackman

Reply Report comment
- Michael
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 10:34 am
  
  What you say is true and a good point, but it isn’t close to what the article is about.
  
  Reply Report comment
Progolfer

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:19 am

The PGA Tour can eliminate this entire argument in a simple way: play golf courses that are narrow and demand precision and accuracy. Personally, I think it’s more fun to play courses that are difficult and require shot-making than courses where I essentially only hit driver and a wedge. I love playing courses where par is a great score. Instead, the Tour continues to think the best way to entertain the public is with long drives and lots of birdies. Is there any wonder why manufacturers constantly push for distance gains in equipment?!

Reply Report comment
Steve S

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:16 am

I don’t care what the pros do or the rule changes that have been made for the top 1 percent. The folks I play with ignore the groove rule and the anchored putting rule. We’d ignore the COR rule too, if you could find “off the shelf” clubs that exceeded 0.83. Making the ball go shorter is lunacy for all but the longer hitters. With most amateur golfers swinging driver at well below 100mph they struggle just to get a carry distance above 200-210 yards. How much fun would it be to hit a driver 180 and a 5 iron 130? Maybe when you’re 85 years old.

Reply Report comment
Darryl

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:00 am

I want to see the ProTracer on every shot, I love it, watching most shots where the ball instantly disappears into the sky is really pointless isn’t it???????? Why aren’t they using it more, I see Youtubers using the technology for their own little shows for crying out loud so it can’t be a cost issue.

Reply Report comment
Deadeye

Mar 8, 2017 at 9:03 am

Why is this a problem? Unlike other games played with a ball, golf is completely adjustable. We move the tees up and back, we move the pins up and back, we have multiple sets of tee boxes. You can play any legal ball or club you like. Want more distance off the tee? Just move to a more forward tee box! Gain twenty to fifty yards instantly! You say the pros can’t do that? Screw them, if they make the cut they can make more than a million dollars a year and finish fiftieth. It’s the amateur players that pay for this game and keep it alive. The USGA needs to seriously consider making separate rules for professional players if they think distance is a problem(which they don’t). Professional tournaments should be played more on courses like Chapultepec in Mexico. Narrow fairways, more trees, difficult greens. Deep US Open type rough is not the answer. The Scots figured out long ago how to make golf more difficult, deep bunkers strategically placed, undulating greens, burns. Best advice for those seeking more distance: get fit for a new driver, don’t just buy off the rack. You could easily pick up twenty yards. And we still have to putt.

Reply Report comment
Matt K

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:57 am

A softer compression ball would hurt a longer player more than a shorter hitter. I think. Don’t know a lot about it but if you take a ball with x compression that player A hits 250 and he compresses it fully. If you make that the limit then player B who hits its 320 will hit that ball shorter, whilst player A loses nothing. Is this sound logic?

Reply Report comment
- Steve
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 11:23 am
  
  It makes sense in theory, but why should the bigger, faster, stronger guy be punished over everyone else? Whether he’s naturally gifted or busts his butt in the gym, he SHOULD be hitting it a heck of a lot further than the guys that don’t work as hard.
  
  Reply Report comment
Greg Hunter

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:18 am

Good article!

Reply Report comment
- LD
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 9:45 am
  
  One of the best articles I have read on this site.
  
  Reply Report comment
Kyle

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:18 am

There’s a big difference between a sport evolving and the equipment evolving…
So, should they allow metal bats in pro baseball by the same logic of this article?

Isn’t Augusta trying to spend millions just to extend #13? Am I the only one that thinks that’s crazy???

There’s nothing wrong with hitting the ball shorter. it means we can play shorter courses. Shorter courses have a smaller environmental impact, are easier to walk, cheaper to maintain.

Not to mention, if you’re a short hitter, you’re going to be shorter than other players either way. The numbers change, but your comparative disadvantage is the same. So what is the point?

Reply Report comment
- Crazy
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 8:49 am
  
  Everything about Augusta is crazy if you think about it… And that hole is only like 515.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Greg V
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 9:15 am
  
  Excellent comment. If the ball is made shorter, we can simply move up to a shorter tee.
  
  Mike Davis recently raised the possibility of a shorter ball for great old short courses such as Myopia Hunt Club. Good – at least the USGA is considering such a change.
  
  It’s time for Bill Payne to advocate for a “Masters” ball.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Michael
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 10:55 am
  
  Metal bat comparison – Not really relevant. MLB has no way to counteract that effect that would destroy other aspects of the game. Pro golf has several options regarding distance gains and most of them would restore aspects of the game that have faded. If courses want to host PGA Tour/professional events let them do whatever they want to land the event. It’s their money. If you change the setups just about all of the classics can still present the appropriate challenge and excitement. The real argument here is the refusal of the PGA Tour to deal with this. It isn’t USGA or R&A equipment standards.
  
  My guess is 90% of all golfers are almost never playing a set up over 6600 yards. I belong to a private TPC course which can play 7500 yards. I’ve never seen anyone other than some tour members practicing or PGA section events participants play it from all the way back. The most common set up is the “Members” tees which blends the two middle tees and plays about 6400 yards with a 71.2/141 rating. The tips are set at 7400 yards and 76.2/155. If you are scratch or pro maybe this is an issue. T/hat portion of the golfing population is minuscule.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Steve
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 11:18 am
  
  MLB has changed the ball many times, and they’re currently attempting to do it again…
  
  Reply Report comment
SV

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:15 am

Two things I noticed: 1. 2003 as the year chosen for the baseline was after the greater jump in distance had occurred from multi-piece balls, larger metal drivers and graphite shafts. 2. Citing the driving distance of winners versus tour average does not take into account the course and clubs used for the tee shots (driver vs 3 wood or 3 iron or hybrid).

Reply Report comment
- Crazy
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 8:51 am
  
  If you knew how driving distance stats are calculated… They pick two holes running roughly opposite ways where they think most players are very likely to hit drivers.
  
  Reply Report comment
DaveT

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:10 am

Absolutely spot-on!

While the Tour is gaining distance (albeit slowly), I’m losing distance. If the need for distance in order to play increases, it becomes less fun for me. BTW, you also identified expense as the single most difficult problem golf needs to overcome. Making courses longer just makes it worse.

Reply Report comment
Ian

Mar 8, 2017 at 7:54 am

Don’t really care what they do on the tours. I would like to play a shorter ball on a shorter course so that it wouldn’t take me 6 hours to get around.

Reply Report comment
- Crazy
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 8:51 am
  
  You want a shorter ball?? Just move up a set of tees.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - Ian
    
    Mar 8, 2017 at 8:56 am
    
    No moving up a tee would only make the course shorter – I can move the ball out plenty, so all that would do it make it easier. A shorter ball and course would keep the skill requirement up but shorten the round time because I wouldn’t need to walk as far.
    
    Reply Report comment
    - Scott
      
      Mar 8, 2017 at 10:46 am
      
      I am not sure that I understand. You mention playing a long course with a shorter distance ball. Then because the ball goes less, you want to play a shorter course which is different from the one you are currently playing , but you don’t want to move up a set of tees at the course you are playing? All in an effort to save some steps and play in a shorter amount of time? Maybe try tennis.
      
      Reply Report comment
      - Ian
        
        Mar 8, 2017 at 11:14 am
        
        Never said a longer course. Shorter course and shorter ball = fewer steps and more importantly less time.
        
        Reply Report comment
        
        Steve
        
        Mar 8, 2017 at 11:20 am
        
        How about driving a cart… then you can take minimal steps and drive a heck of a lot faster than you walk.
        
        Reply Report comment
        
        George
        
        Mar 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm
        
        I can walk my 6600yd home course in 2h45 without getting out of breath. I played single behind a 4-ball in Scotland taking 3h for 18 holes (no need to play through). And I’ve played 6000yd courses in FL driving a cart that took me 4h. Your argument stinks.
        
        Reply Report comment
- Michael
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 11:01 am
  
  If it is taking you six hours to play the issue is one of two things or both:
  
  1. You need basic instruction and aren’t really ready to be on the course yet and haven’t learned basic golf etiquette and rules of the game.
  
  And/or …
  
  2. The course where you are playing is horribly mismanaged and there is no rangering program or enforcement of the rules and policies.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - Ian
    
    Mar 8, 2017 at 11:16 am
    
    Thanks bud, off a 5 so you tell me.
    Good course but no marshalls.
    
    Reply Report comment

Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: What really makes a wedge work? Part 1

Published

15 hours ago

Apr 18, 2024

Terry Koehler

Of all the clubs in our bags, wedges are almost always the simplest in construction and, therefore, the easiest to analyze what might make one work differently from another if you know what to look for.

Wedges are a lot less mysterious than drivers, of course, as the major brands are working with a lot of “pixie dust” inside these modern marvels. That’s carrying over more to irons now, with so many new models featuring internal multi-material technologies, and almost all of them having a “badge” or insert in the back to allow more complex graphics while hiding the actual distribution of mass.

But when it comes to wedges, most on the market today are still single pieces of molded steel, either cast or forged into that shape. So, if you look closely at where the mass is distributed, it’s pretty clear how that wedge is going to perform.

To start, because of their wider soles, the majority of the mass of almost any wedge is along the bottom third of the clubhead. So, the best wedge shots are always those hit between the 2nd and 5th grooves so that more mass is directly behind that impact. Elite tour professionals practice incessantly to learn to do that consistently, wearing out a spot about the size of a penny right there. If impact moves higher than that, the face is dramatically thinner, so smash factor is compromised significantly, which reduces the overall distance the ball will fly.

Every one of us, tour players included, knows that maddening shot that we feel a bit high on the face and it doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not your fault.

If your wedges show a wear pattern the size of a silver dollar, and centered above the 3rd or 4th groove, you are not getting anywhere near the same performance from shot to shot. Robot testing proves impact even two to three grooves higher in the face can cause distance loss of up to 35 to 55 feet with modern ‘tour design’ wedges.

In addition, as impact moves above the center of mass, the golf club principle of gear effect causes the ball to fly higher with less spin. Think of modern drivers for a minute. The “holy grail” of driving is high launch and low spin, and the driver engineers are pulling out all stops to get the mass as low in the clubhead as possible to optimize this combination.

Where is all the mass in your wedges? Low. So, disregarding the higher lofts, wedges “want” to launch the ball high with low spin – exactly the opposite of what good wedge play requires penetrating ball flight with high spin.

While almost all major brand wedges have begun putting a tiny bit more thickness in the top portion of the clubhead, conventional and modern ‘tour design’ wedges perform pretty much like they always have. Elite players learn to hit those crisp, spinny penetrating wedge shots by spending lots of practice time learning to consistently make contact low in the face.

So, what about grooves and face texture?

Grooves on any club can only do so much, and no one has any material advantage here. The USGA tightly defines what we manufacturers can do with grooves and face texture, and modern manufacturing techniques allow all of us to push those limits ever closer. And we all do. End of story.

Then there’s the topic of bounce and grinds, the most complex and confusing part of the wedge formula. Many top brands offer a complex array of sole configurations, all of them admittedly specialized to a particular kind of lie or turf conditions, and/or a particular divot pattern.

But if you don’t play the same turf all the time, and make the same size divot on every swing, how would you ever figure this out?

The only way is to take any wedge you are considering and play it a few rounds, hitting all the shots you face and observing the results. There’s simply no other way.

So, hopefully this will inspire a lively conversation in our comments section, and I’ll chime in to answer any questions you might have.

And next week, I’ll dive into the rest of the wedge formula. Yes, shafts, grips and specifications are essential, too.

Your Reaction?

LIKE13
LEGIT4
WOW1
LOL1
IDHT2
FLOP2
OB1
SHANK1

Golf's Perfect Imperfections

Golf’s Perfect Imperfections: Amazing Session with Performance Coach Savannah Meyer-Clement

Published

15 hours ago

Apr 18, 2024

GolfWRX Staff

In this week’s episode, we spent some time with performance coach Savannah Meyer-Clement who provides many useful insights that you’ll be able to implement on the golf course.

Your Reaction?

LIKE0
LEGIT0
WOW0
LOL0
IDHT0
FLOP0
OB0
SHANK0

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s 2024 RBC Heritage betting preview: Patrick Cantlay ready to get back inside winner’s circle

Published

4 days ago

Apr 15, 2024

Matt Vincenzi

Just a two-hour drive from Augusta National, the PGA TOUR heads to Harbour Town Golf Links in Hilton Head Island, S.C. Hilton Head Island is a golfer’s paradise and Harbour Town is one of the most beautiful and scenic courses on the PGA TOUR.

Harbour Town Golf Links is a par-71 that measures 7,121 yards and features Bermuda grass greens. A Pete Dye design, the course is heavily tree lined and features small greens and many dog legs, protecting it from “bomb-and-gauge” type golfers.

The field is loaded this week with 69 golfers with no cut. Last year was quite possibly the best field in RBC Heritage history and the event this week is yet another designated event, meaning there is a $20 million prize pool.

Most of the big names on the PGA Tour will be in attendance this week with the exceptions of Hideki Matsuyama and Viktor Hovland. Additionally, Webb Simpson, Shane Lowry, Gary Woodland and Kevin Kisner have been granted sponsors exemptions.

Past Winners at Harbour Town

2023: Matt Fitzpatrick (-17)
2022: Jordan Spieth (-13)
2021: Stewart Cink (-19)
2020: Webb Simpson (-22)
2019: CT Pan (-12)
2018: Sotoshi Kodaira (-12)
2017: Wesley Bryan (-13)
2016: Branden Grace (-9)
2015: Jim Furyk (-18)

In this article and going forward, I’ll be using the Rabbit Hole by Betsperts Golf data engine to develop my custom model. If you want to build your own model or check out all of the detailed stats, you can sign up using promo code: MATTVIN for 25% off any subscription package (yearly is best value).

Key Stats For Harbour Town

Let’s take a look at key metrics for Harbour Town Golf Links to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their past 24 rounds.

Strokes Gained: Approach

Strokes Gained: Approach is exceedingly important this week. The greens at Harbour Town are about half the size of PGA TOUR average and feature the second-smallest greens on the tour. Typical of a Pete Dye design, golfers will pay the price for missed greens.

Total SG: Approach Over Past 24 Rounds

Scottie Scheffler (+1.27)
Tom Hoge (+1.27)
Corey Conners (+1.16)
Austin Eckroat (+0.95)
Cameron Young (+0.93)

Good Drive %

The fairways at Harbour Town are tree lined and feature many dog legs. Bombers tend to struggle at the course because it forces layups and doesn’t allow long drivers to overpower it. Accuracy is far more important than power.

Good Drive % Over Past 24 Rounds

Brice Garnett (88.8%)
Shane Lowry (+87.2%)
Akshay Bhatia (+86.0%)
Si Woo Kim (+85.8%)
Sepp Straka (+85.1%)

Strokes Gained: Total at Pete Dye Designs

Pete Dye specialists tend to play very well at Harbour Town. Si Woo Kim, Matt Kuchar, Jim Furyk and Webb Simpson are all Pete Dye specialists who have had great success here. It is likely we see some more specialists near the top of the leaderboard this week.

SG: TOT Pete Dye per round over past 36 rounds:

Xander Schauffele (+2.27)
Scottie Scheffler (+2.24)
Ludvig Aberg (+2.11)
Brian Harman (+1.89)
Sungjae Im (+1.58)

4. Strokes Gained: Short Game (Bermuda)

Strokes Gained: Short Game factors in both around the green and putting. With many green-side bunkers and tricky green complexes, both statistics will be important. Past winners — such as Jim Furyk, Wes Bryan and Webb Simpson — highlight how crucial the short game skill set is around Harbour Town.

SG: SG Over Past 24 Rounds

Jordan Spieth (+1.11)
Taylor Moore (+1.02)
Wyndham Clark (+0.98)
Mackenzie Hughes (+0.86)
Andrew Putnam (+0.83)

5. Greens in Regulation %

The recipe for success at Harbour Town Golf Links is hitting fairways and greens. Missing either will prove to be consequential — golfers must be in total control of the ball to win.

Greens in Regulation % over past 24 rounds:

Brice Garnett (+75.0%)
Scottie Scheffler (+69.9%)
Corey Conners (+69.0%)
Shane Lowry (+68.3%)
Patrick Rodgers (+67.6%)

6. Course History

Harbour Town is a course where players who have strong past results at the course always tend to pop up.

Course History over past 24 rounds:

Patrick Cantlay (+2.34)
Cam Davis (+2.05)
J.T. Poston (+1.69)
Justin Rose (+1.68)
Tommy Fleetwood (+1.59)

The RBC Heritage Model Rankings

Below, I’ve compiled overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed — SG: Approach (24%), Good Drives (20%), SG: SG (14%), SG: Pete Dye (14%), GIR (14%), and Course History (14%)

Shane Lowry
Russell Henley
Scottie Scheffler
Xander Schauffele
Corey Conners
Wyndham Clark
Christiaan Bezuidenhout
Matt Fitzpatrick
Cameron Young
Ludvig Aberg

2024 RBC Heritage Picks

Patrick Cantlay +2000 (FanDuel)

With the exception of Scottie Scheffler, the PGA Tour has yet to have any of their star players show peak form during the 2024 season. Last week, Patrick Cantlay, who I believe is a top-5 players on the PGA Tour, took one step closer to regaining the form that’s helped him win eight events on Tour since 2017.

Cantlay limped into the Masters in poor form, but figured it out at Augusta National, finishing in a tie for 20th and ranking 17th for the week in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking. The former FedEx Cup champion will now head to one of his favorite golf courses in Harbour Town, where he’s had immaculate results over the years. In his six trips to the course, he’s only finished worse than 7th one time. The other finishes include three third places (2017, 2019, 2023) and one runner-up finish (2022). In his past 36 rounds at Harbour Town, Cantlay ranks 1st in Strokes Gained: Total per round at the course by a wide margin (+2.36).

Cantlay is winless since the 2022 BMW Championship, which is far too long for a player of his caliber. With signs pointing to the 32-year-old returning to form, a “signature event” at Harbour Town is just what he needs to get back on the winning track.

Tommy Fleetwood +3000 (FanDuel)

I truly believe Tommy Fleetwood will figure out a way to win on American soil in 2024. It’s certainly been a bugaboo for him throughout his career, but he is simply too talented to go another season without winning a PGA Tour event.

At last week’s Masters Tournament, Fleetwood made a Sunday charge and ended up finishing T3 in the event, which was his best ever finish at The Masters. For the week, the Englishman ranked 8th in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach, 10th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking and 16th in Strokes Gained: Putting.

Harbour Town is a perfect layout for Fleetwood, and he’s had relative success at this Pete Dye design in the past. In his four trips to the course, he’s finished inside of the top 25 three times, with his best finish, T10, coming in 2022. The course is pretty short and can’t be overpowered, which gives an advantage to more accurate players such as Fleetwood. Tommy ranks 8th in the field in Good Drive % and should be able to plot his way along this golf course.

The win is coming for Tommy lad. I believe there’s a chance this treasure of a golf course may be the perfect one for him to finally break through on Tour.

Cameron Young +3300 (FanDuel)

Cameron Young had a solid Masters Tournament last week, which is exactly what I’m looking for in players who I anticipate playing well this week at the RBC Heritage. He finished in a tie for 9th, but never felt the pressure of contending in the event. For the week, Young ranked 6th in Strokes Gained: Off the Tee and 6th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking.

Despite being one of the longest players off the tee on the PGA Tour, Young has actually played some really good golf on shorter tracks. He finished T3 at Harbour Town in 2023 and ranks 20th in the field in Good Drive% and 16th in Greens in Regulation in his past 24 rounds. He also has strong finishes at other shorter courses that can take driver out of a players hand such as Copperhead and PGA National.

Young is simply one of the best players on the PGA Tour in 2024, and I strongly believe has what it takes to win a PGA Tour event in the very near future.

Corey Conners +5500 (FanDuel)

Corey Conners has had a disappointing year thus far on the PGA Tour, but absolutely loves Harbour Town.

At last week’s Masters Tournament, the Canadian finished T30 but ranked 20th in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach. In his past 24 rounds, Conners ranks 3rd in the field in Strokes Gained: Approach, 3rd in Greens in Regulation % and 24th in Good Drive %.

In Conners’ last four trips to Harbour Town, his worst finish was T31, last season. He finished T4 in 2021, T12 in 2022 and ranks 8th in Strokes Gained: Total at the course over his past 36 rounds.

Conners hasn’t been contending, but his recent finishes have been encouraging as he has finished in the top-25 in each of his past three starts prior to The Masters, including an impressive T13 at The PLAYERS. His recent improvement in ball striking as well as his suitability for Harbour Town makes Conners a high upside bet this week.

Shane Lowry (+7500) (FanDuel)

When these odds were posted after Lowry was announced in the field, I have to admit I was pretty stunned. Despite not offering much win equity on the PGA Tour over the last handful of years, Shane Lowry is still a top caliber player who has the ability to rise to the top of a signature event.

Lowry struggled to score at The Masters last week, but he actually hit the ball really well. The Irishman ranked 1st for Strokes Gained: Approach on the week and 7th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking. As usual, it was the putter that let him down, as he ranked 60th in the field in Strokes Gained: Putting.

Harbour Town is most definitely one of Lowry’s favorite courses on the PGA Tour. In his six starts there, he’s finished in the top 10 three times, including third twice. Lowry is sensational at Pete Dye designs and ranks 7th in Strokes Gained: Total in his past 36 rounds on Dye tracks.

Lowry is perfect for Harbour Town. In his past 24 rounds, he ranks 5th in Strokes Gained: Approach, 2nd in Good Drive% and 5th in Green in Regulation %. If he figures it out on the greens, Shane could have his first win in America since 2015.

Lucas Glover +12000 (FanDuel)

This is one of my weekly “bet the number” plays as I strongly believe the odds are just too long for a player of Glover’s caliber. The odds have been too long on Glover for a few weeks now, but this is the first event that I can get behind the veteran being able to actually contend at.

Glover is quietly playing good golf and returning to the form he had after the understandable regression after his two massive victories at the end of 2023. He finished T20 at The Masters, which was his best ever finish at Augusta National. For the week, Lucas ranked 18th for Strokes Gained: Approach and 20th in Strokes Gained: Ball Striking.

Over his past 24 rounds, Glover ranks 9th in Strokes Gained: Approach and 13th in Good Drive %. Harbour Town is a short course that the 44-year-old will be able to keep up with the top players on Tour off the tee. He’s played the course more than 20 times, with mixed results. His best finishes at Harbour Town include a T7 in 2008, but recently has a finish of T21 in 2020.

Glover has proven he can contend with the stars of the Tour on any given week, and this number is flat out disrespectful.

Your Reaction?