Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

See what GolfWRX members are saying about Titleist’s new AVX golf balls



On October 6, Titleist released new “AVX” white and yellow golf balls in three states: Arizona, California and Florida. Our sources told us that the new golf ball was a premium offering with a urethane cover, and that it was made to have a softer feel than Titleist’s Pro V1 golf balls, and create more distance, too. The company was said to be merely testing the product, which is selling for the same price as Pro V1 golf balls, at retail in those locations.

It’s been several weeks now since the release, and as we await Titleist’s assessment of feedback from the public, let’s dive into what GolfWRX members are saying so far about the golf ball.

Click here to view the entire AVX forum thread.

Editor’s Note: Comments below were taken from posts on October 6th or after, since those are when the balls actually hit retail. Posts have been minimally edited for brevity and grammar. 

What’s the word on AVX?

tbowles411: Alternative to the V and X. Straight from the Titleist rep.

Homerun2Birdie: Am I the only one who thought these were NOT soft? Thought the ball performed admirably: spun enough around the greens, seemed a bit hard coming in on full iron shots, flight was noticeably lower as advertised. That being said, I did not feel like this ball was soft at all. 

Fiddy3: I can tell you one non-debatable fact. Golf stores are paying $36+ cost for the AVX.

QuigleyDU: It is right up there with every other premium ball out there. It has mid-high flight in my opinion. Full shots it is fine, wedges and green side are just… OK. Feels decent off the putter. In my opinion, it is slightly longer than the chrome soft x I currently play but does not spin near as well.

Break81: Took the AVX for a test today alternating holes with my Chrome Soft Truvis, and while the AVX was not bad, it’s didn’t really shine in any one area. Felt very similar to the Srixon Q-Star Tour and for the price difference I cannot see why someone would pay $18 more for the name or because they offer yellow. 

crazygolfnut: If it was priced in the $30 to $35 range I would try it. But the way it is, I will continue to play other brands.

mixedguy: Played 2 rounds with it today soft and spins. I hit it further than both the v1 and X. It’s right between the two, imo. Great ball but it is pricey. 

MysteryV: Played my first round with the AVX yesterday. Good ball. Soft off the putter, long off the driver, spins off wedges and irons. Not sure it’s worth the price premium over NXT Tour S as the two seem pretty similar. I did notice it was flying significantly further than I expected on every shot, however I was striking the ball better than usual yesterday, so tough to tell if it was new or the ball.


  • Driver: Very long 
  • Irons: Good through air and breeze, long. 
  • Putter: Felt and sounded great. 
  • Around the green: Didn’t hit enough shots to really know. Hit a few very good flop type shots after putting myself in bad positions. Felt and sounded pretty good off wedges. 

speeder757: The AVX reminds me of the Original Pro V1. Its softer than either of the current ProV1’s. Just picking the ball up it feels lighter than the Pro V1 or Pro V1x. I’m not sure if that would quantify on a scale or if its just the compression. The dimples are shallower similar to a Bridgestone ball. I have played this ball at my home course for 5 rounds now directly against the Pro V1 and Pro V1x and think it might be my new gamer. 
It’s slightly longer than either current Pro V1 off the tee. Flight seems to be more stable however and for whatever reason it seemed more consistent. The AVX was 3-5 yards longer than both Pro V1’s off the irons. AVX spins just a little less on green side short chip shots than the Pro V1x. I would say roughly the same as the Pro V1 with maybe a slight edge still to the Pro V1. I would say the AVX has enough greenside spin to be comparable to other premium balls though. I have heard some say the AVX feels heavy on chip shots. That wasn’t my experience at all. It feels light and springy if anything. Lastly the AVX is softer off the Putter than either Pro V1. All in all its a great ball. If it spun just a little bit more on short chip shots like the Pro V1x does it would be the best ball ever made. AVX does seem more durable than either Pro V1 and the cover doesn’t get chewed up on chips shots as easily as the Pro V1’s do. Price wise its overpriced like all current golf balls on the market are. But it does perform.

johnw29: I live in Arkansas and I ordered 2 dozen from Edwin Watts in Destin, Florida. They shipped them on a Monday and I got them on Wednesday. 

jrshelby: Played my first round with them. Let me say that they are just weird and confusing. Don’t know how else to put it. They have a slight advantage in having a little less spin but I definitely get very different flights at times. Sometimes higher then anything else I’ve hit and sometimes way lower as well. I’ll put another round in on them this Sunday before I start making any assessments I guess. 

After playing a round with the AVX and at least 30+ rounds with the Chrome soft this year and can honestly say the AVX is not in ANY way similar, and I mean no where close, and I mean to be redundant, but could not be further away design wise. The chrome soft is just that, soft. These are not. The chrome soft is moderate distance with moderate to high spin. AVX is very high launch with extremely low spin on most clubs I’d say down to 6 iron. Then spins slightly more then you’d expect from 7-PW. Then does not spin enough with wedges. 2 out of 3 is usually not bad, but in the case of the AVX it just may be.

drew_harvie: This is a pretty good ball imo. Lower, spins less off the driver. I think it’s a pretty good ball if you hit it really really high with a lot of spin (like myself). It’s crazy how popular these are in Arizona though. Wigwam is selling them for $64 for a dozen and have sold out twice. Not sure if I’d switch from the ProV1X but it’s much better than I was expecting.

See all of the comments about Titleist’s AVX golf ball here.

Your Reaction?
  • 63
  • LEGIT15
  • WOW4
  • LOL13
  • IDHT6
  • FLOP28
  • OB12
  • SHANK188

We share your golf passion. You can follow GolfWRX on Twitter @GolfWRX, Facebook and Instagram.



  1. Thomas A

    Dec 14, 2017 at 11:19 am

    Whatever. I’ll still by all of your once-hit-then-lost ProV1’s on lostgolfballs website for $16 a dozen.

  2. Mike

    Dec 4, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    Every review seems to contradict the one above it. Wow

  3. d

    Nov 27, 2017 at 3:14 pm

    Generally plays like a Pro-V1. I have been playing them for a couple weeks, and they seem to fly higher and farther than the Pro-V1. They don’t seem to spin as much around the greens as the Pro-V1—maybe more like a Pro-V1X. However, it seems like they spin A LOT on full shots. I have spun back a full PW 25 feet on more than one occasion.

  4. Robin Weckesser

    Nov 2, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    I’ve tried the AVX. Was looking forward to them. Not impressed. They feel a bit harsh which Im not a fan of.
    I’ll stick with the VICE balls….better value, better feel, better distance, better consistancy….

  5. Mat

    Nov 2, 2017 at 5:33 am

    Synthesising all of these… basically, there’s nothing unique about it. It’s a Srixon at double the price, and a little harshness thrown in gratis… not good. I’ll stick with Bridgestone.

  6. Jack

    Nov 2, 2017 at 5:15 am

    I’d buy it for the logo.

  7. C.B.

    Nov 2, 2017 at 1:58 am

    No, no, no, you all have it wrong.
    The name is “it’s a Srixon XV copy by Acushnet.” That’s what it stands for. Therefore, AVX, backwards.

  8. Someone

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    making an amateur VXball? isn’t that incongruent with their marketing? prov prov1 is supposed to be the best ball for any player…why now would you introduce an amateur ball priced like a pro ball? what are you now saying about your pro series? that it’s no longer the best ball for all players? they really need to handle that marketing strategy…

  9. Tom54

    Nov 1, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    My comment is to read Jeff’s opinion. I’m a decent 3 hdcp and truthfully I can’t tell one premium ball from another. To me if I hit it squarely all will probably do the same. I don’t claim to know all the spin rates, etc and all that jazz that some of these people claim.

    • chopper

      Nov 1, 2017 at 10:16 pm

      I am a 2 that hits it like a 0 (I can’t chip or putt). no way can I tell a difference between premium balls. the garbage nike balls from early 2000’s of course withstanding.

      • Table

        Nov 2, 2017 at 6:10 am

        Haha…so true….there are soo many posers on this site that can’t play a lick…and somehow “they know”..

  10. cody

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    having been a member of GOLFWRX for a long time. i can tell you there are some very very good players that are making these comments. yes, feel is 100% subjective and the reviews are nonscientific but they are real and unbiased. i have played this ball and it is good but, so is every premium ball, so slight difference can be hard to see and explain, even though you know they are there.

  11. Dave

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Most amateurs; especially, double digit players are not consistent enough to quantify performance of golf balls! Yes, many can tell the difference between a pinnacle and a pro v1 but that is about as close as it gets!

  12. kennyboy

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    I am more confused now than before i started reading these reviews.

  13. Stephenie

    Nov 1, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    I’ve played the AVX over several rounds this year and I’m unimpressed. I found it to sound and feel very similar to the Velocity. Mid summer, I switched from the ProV1x to Taylormade TP5x and noticed a big difference in distance, feel was the same. I also played the Volvik Vivid and loved that too. I paired the AVX against the Volvik and was 5 to 10 less yards off the tee and about 5 yards shorter on irons. The AVX also felt very clunky, with a lower launch. I gifted my two sleeves.

  14. Jeff

    Nov 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    I find it hilarious when people say “X ball seemed to fly higher” or “X ball spun more on a full 6-iron.” There is absolutely no way an amateur golfer can say that with conviction. We hit the ball off the center of the face most of the time and may hit a few clubs only 1 or 2 times a round. Just play what you like and don’t try to sound like a tour pro!

  15. Matt-78

    Nov 1, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    I don’t think there is anything complex about this ball, but I could be wrong. I just think it’s Titleist’s entry into the same area that the Chrome Soft, Q-Star Tour, etc. exists. A hybrid between a high-handicap ball and a tour ball. A core that is less expensive to manufacture, softer core than tour ball, the high lift dimple pattern of a “distance” ball (shallower dimples), but with a cast urethane cover (not a thermoset urethane cover like the Pro V). Compared to a tour ball it will be softer, higher lift dimples, and less spin. Compared to a traditional “distance” ball it will be softer, similar dimple lift, but with more spin. At least that’s what I think. YMMV.

  16. George

    Nov 1, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    Another ball from Titleist that underperforms, and is far overpriced. Stick to Snell, Vice, or now….Cut Golf! Premium urethane tour balls that truly PERFORM at huge huge savings!

  17. Chopper

    Nov 1, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    The range of comments seem to me to back up my theory that unless you are a supreme striker of the ball (think +4), paint all the premium balls white and the novice to scratch player will never be able to tell a difference.

  18. Steve S

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:52 am

    As usual non-scientific evaluations are almost meaningless. Maybe “someone” will do a test of them vs. the proV’s like they did with the Costco ball.

  19. GMatt

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:35 am

    I agree, after reading these reviews I’m not sure exactly where this ball stacks up and exactly how it might perform, just goes to show how it performs with one person doesn’t mean it performs the same way to another. I too would like to see head to head data on a simulator

  20. Aaron

    Nov 1, 2017 at 11:17 am

    These wildly different reviews simply prove “feel” means something different to all of us. I’m more confused now than before reading those reviews. Put the AVX on a Trackman and hit shots against the ProV1 & ProV1x.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion & Analysis

Fantasy Preview: 2018 Fort Worth Invitational



Under a new name, but a very familiar setting, the Fort Worth Championship gets underway this week. Colonial Country Club will host, and it’s an event that has attracted some big names to compete in the final stop of the Texas swing. The top two ranked Europeans, Jon Rahm and Justin Rose are in the field, as are Americans Jordan Spieth and Rickie Fowler.

Colonial is a tricky course with narrow tree-lined fairways that are imperative to hit. Distance off the tee holds no real advantage this week with approach play being pivotal. Approach shots will be made more difficult this week than usual by the greens at Colonial, which are some of the smallest on the PGA Tour. Last year, Kevin Kisner held off Spieth, Rahm, and O’Hair to post 10-under par and take the title by a one-stroke margin.

Selected Tournament Odds (via Bet365)

  • Jordan Spieth 9/1
  • Jon Rahm 14/1
  • Justin Rose 18/1
  • Webb Simpson 18/1
  • Rickie Fowler 20/1
  • Jimmy Walker 28/1
  • Adam Scott 28/1

Last week, Jordan Spieth (9/1, DK Price $11,700) went off at the Byron Nelson as the prohibitive 5/1 favorite. Every man and his dog seemed to be on him, and after Spieth spoke to the media about how he felt he had a distinct advantage at a course where he is a member, it was really no surprise. Comments like this from Spieth at the Byron Nelson are not new. When the event was held at TPC Four Seasons, Spieth often made similar comments. The result? He flopped, just as he did last week at Trinity Forest. Spieth’s best finish at the Byron Nelson in his career is T-16. The reason for this, I believe, is the expectations he has put on himself at this event for years.

Switch to Colonial, and the difference is considerable. Spieth’s worst finish here is T-14. In his last three visits, he has finished second, first and second. While Spieth may believe that he should win the Byron Nelson whenever he tees it up there, the evidence suggests that his love affair is with Colonial. The statistic that truly emphasizes his prowess at Colonial, though, is his Strokes Gained-Total at the course. Since 2013, Spieth has a ridiculous Strokes Gained-Total of more than +55 on the course, almost double that of Kisner in second place.

Spieth’s long game all year has been consistently good. Over his previous 24 rounds, he ranks first in this field for Strokes Gained-Tee to Green, second for Ball Striking, and first for Strokes Gained-Total. On the other hand, his putting is awful at the moment. He had yet another dreadful performance on the greens at Trinity Forest, but he was also putting nowhere near his best coming into Colonial last year. In 2017, he had dropped strokes on the greens in his previous two events, missing the cut on both occasions, yet he finished seventh in Strokes Gained-Putting at Colonial on his way to a runner-up finish. His record is too good at this course for Spieth to be 9/1, and he can ignite his 2018 season in his home state this week.

Emiliano Grillo’s (50/1, DK Price $8,600) only missed cut in 2018 came at the team event in New Orleans, and he arrives this week at a course ideally suited to the Argentine’s game. Grillo performed well here in 2017, recording a top-25 finish. His form in 2018 leads me to believe he can improve on that this year.

As a second-shot golf course, Colonial sets up beautifully for the strengths of Grillo’s game. Over his previous 12 rounds, Grillo ranks first in Strokes Gained-Approaching the Green, second in Ball Striking, third in Strokes Gained-Tee to Green and eighth in Strokes Gained-Total. The Argentine also plays short golf courses excellently. Over his last 50 rounds, Grillo is ranked ninth for Strokes Gained-Total on courses measuring 7,200 yards or less. Colonial is right on that number, and Grillo looks undervalued to continue his consistent season on a course that suits him very well.

Another man enjoying a consistent 2018 is Adam Hadwin (66/1, DK Price $7,600), who has yet to miss a cut this season. The Canadian is enjoying an excellent run of form with five top-25 finishes from his last six stroke-play events. Hadwin is another man whose game is tailor made for Colonial. His accurate iron play and solid putting is a recipe for success here, and he has proven that by making the cut in all three of his starts at Colonial, finishing in the top-25 twice.

Hadwin is coming off his worst performance of 2018 at The Players Championship, but it was an anomaly you can chalk up to a rare poor week around the greens (he was seventh-to-last in Strokes Gained-Around the Green for the week). In his previous seven starts, Hadwin had a positive strokes gained total in this category each time. Over his last 24 rounds, Hadwin ranks seventh in Strokes Gained-Approaching the Green, 15th in Ball Striking, and ninth in Strokes Gained-Putting. He looks to have an excellent opportunity to improve on his solid record at Colonial this week.

Finally, as far as outsiders go, I like the look of Sean O’Hair (175/1, DK Price $7,100) at what is a juicy price. One of last year’s runners-up, his number is far too big this week. He has had some excellent performances so far in 2018. In fact, in his previous six starts, O’Hair has made five cuts and has notched three top-15 finishes, including his runner-up finish at the Valero Texas Open. The Texan has made three of his last four cuts at Colonial, and he looks to be an excellent pick on DraftKings at a low price.

Recommended Plays

  • Jordan Spieth 9/1, DK Price $11,700
  • Emiliano Grillo 50/1, DK Price $8.600
  • Adam Hadwin 66/1, DK Price $7,600
  • Sean O’Hair 175/1, DK Price  $7,100
Your Reaction?
  • 0
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

Pick three golfers to build the ultimate scramble team. Who you got?



It’s officially scramble season. Whether it’s a corporate outing or charity event, surely you’ve either been invited to play in or have already played in a scramble this year.

If you don’t know the rules of the scramble format, here’s how it works: All four golfers hit their drives, then the group elects the best shot. From there, all four golfers hit the shot, and the best of the bunch is chosen once again. The hole continues in this fashion until the golf ball is holed.

The best scramble players are those who hit the ball really far and/or stick it close with the irons and/or hole a lot of putts. The point is to make as many birdies and eagles as possible.

With this in mind, inside GolfWRX Headquarters, we got to discussing who would be on the ultimate scramble team. Obviously, Tiger-Jack-Daly was brought up immediately, so there needed to be a caveat to make it more challenging.

Thus, the following hypothetical was born. We assigned each golfer below a dollar value, and said that we had to build a three player scramble team (plus yourself) for $8 or less.

Here are the answers from the content team here at GolfWRX:

Ben Alberstadt

Tiger Woods ($5): This is obvious. From a scramble standpoint, Tiger gives you everything you want: Long, accurate, and strategic off the tee (in his prime). Woods, sets the team up for optimal approach shots (he was pretty good at those too)…and of course, arguably the greatest pressure putter of all time.

David Duval ($2): I’m thinking of Double D’s machine-like approach play in his prime. Tour-leader in GIR in 1999, and 26th in driving accuracy that year, Duval ought to stick second shots when TW doesn’t and is an asset off the tee.

Corey Pavin ($1): A superb putter and dogged competitor, Pavin’s a great value at $1. Ryder Cup moxy. Plus, he’ll always give you a ball in the fairway off the tee (albeit a short one), much needed in scramble play.

Brian Knudson

Rory McIlroy ($4): I am willing to bet their are only a handful of par 5’s in the world that he can’t hit in in two shots. You need a guy who can flat out overpower a course and put you in short iron situations on every hole. His iron play is a thing of beauty, with a high trajectory that makes going after any sucker pin a possibility.

Jordan Spieth ($3): Was there a guy who putted from mid-range better than him just a couple years ago? If there was, he isn’t on this list. Scrambles need a guy who can drain everything on the green and after watching 3 putts to get the read, he won’t miss. His solid wedge game will also help us get up and down from those short yardages on the Par 4’s.

Corey Pavin ($1): Fear the STACHE!! The former Ryder Cup captain will keep the whole team playing their best and motivated to make birdies and eagles. If we have 228 yards to the flag we know he is pulling that 4 wood out and giving us a short putt for birdie. He will of course be our safety net, hitting the “safe shot,” allowing the rest of us to get aggressive!

Ronald Montesano

Dustin Johnson ($4) – Bombmeister!!!

Lee Trevino ($2) — Funny as hell (and I speak Mexican).

Sergio Garcia ($1) – The greatest iron player (I speak Spanish, too).

Tom Stickney

Dustin Johnson ($4)
Seve Ballesteros ($2)
Lee Trevino ($2)

DJ is longer than I-10, Seve can dig it out of the woods, and Trevino can shape it into any pin.

Andrew Tursky

Dustin Johnson ($4)
Jordan Spieth ($2)
Anthony Kim ($1)

Are all the old timers gonna be mad at me for taking young guys? Doesn’t matter. DJ has to be the best driver ever, as long as he’s hitting that butter cut. With Jordan, it’s hard to tell whether he’s better with his irons or with his putter — remember, we’re talking Jordan in his prime, not the guy who misses putts from 8 inches. Then, Anthony Kim has to be on the team in case the alcohol gets going since, you know, it’s a scramble; remember when he was out all night (allegedly) before the Presidents Cup and still won his match? I need that kind of ability on my squad. Plus AK will get us in the fairway when me, DJ and Spieth each inevitably hit it sideways.

Michael Williams

Tiger Woods ($5)
Seve Ballesteros ($2)
Corey Pavin ($1)

Tiger is a no-brainer. Seve is maybe the most creative player ever and would enjoy playing HORSE with Tiger. Pavin is the only $1 player who wouldn’t be scared stiff to be paired with the first two.

Johnny Wunder

Tiger Woods ($5): His Mind/Overall Game

Seve Ballesteros ($2): His creativity/fire in a team format/inside 100

Anthony Kim ($1): Team swagger/he’s streaky/will hit fairways under the gun.

A scramble requires 3 things: Power, Putting and Momentum. These 3 guys as a team complete the whole package. Tiger is a one man scramble team but will get himself in trouble, which is where Seve comes in. In the case where the momentum is going forward like a freight train, nobody rattles a cage into the zone better than AK. It’s the perfect team and the team I’d want out there if my life was on the line. I’d trust my kids with this team.

Who would you pick on your team, and why? See what GolfWRX Members are saying in the forums.

Your Reaction?
  • 22
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK3

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

Is equipment really to blame for the distance problem in golf?



It’s 2018, we’re more than a quarter of the way through Major Season, and there are 58 players on the PGA Tour averaging over 300 yards off the tee. Trey Mullinax is leading the PGA Tour through the Wells Fargo Championship with an average driving distance of 320 yards. Much discussion has been had about the difficulty such averages are placing on the golf courses across the country. Sewn into the fabric of the distance discussion are suggestions by current and past giants of the game to roll back the golf ball.

In a single segment on an episode of Live From The Masters, Brandel Chamblee said, “There’s a correlation from when the ProV1 was introduced and driving distance spiked,” followed a few minutes later by this: “The equipment isn’t the source of the distance, it’s the athletes.”

So which is it? Does it have to be one or the other? Is there a problem at all?

Several things of interest happened on the PGA Tour in the early 2000s, most of which were entirely driven by the single most dominant athlete of the last 30. First, we saw Tiger Woods win four consecutive majors, the first and only person to do that in the modern era of what are now considered the majors. Second, that same athlete drew enough eyeballs so that Tim Finchem could exponentially increase the prize money golfers were playing for each week. Third, but often the most overlooked, Tiger Woods ushered in fitness to the mainstream of golf. Tiger took what Gary Player and Greg Norman had preached their whole careers and amped it up like he did everything else.

In 1980, Dan Pohl was the longest player on the PGA Tour. He averaged 274 yards off the tee with a 5-foot, 11-inch and 175-pound frame. By 2000, the average distance for all players on the PGA Tour was 274 yards. The leader of the pack that year was John Daly, who was the only man to average over 300 yards. Tiger Woods came in right behind him at 298 yards.

Analysis of the driving distance stats on the PGA Tour since 1980 show a few important statistics: Over the last 38 seasons, the average driving distance for all players on the PGA Tour has increased an average of 1.1 yards per year. When depicted on a graph, it looks like this:

The disparity between the shortest and the longest hitter on the PGA Tour has increased 0.53 yards per year, which means the longest hitters are increasing the gap between themselves and the shortest hitters. The disparity chart fluctuates considerably more than the average distance chart, but the increase from 1980 to 2018 is staggering.

In 1980, there was 35.6 yards between Dan Pohl (longest) and Michael Brannan (shortest – driving distance 238.7 yards). In 2018, the difference between Trey Mullinax and Ken Duke is 55.9 yards. Another point to consider is that in 1980, Michael Brannan was 25. Ken Duke is currently 49 years of age.

The question has not been, “Is there a distance problem?” It’s been, “How do we solve the distance problem?” The data is clear that distance has increased — not so much at an exponential rate, but at a consistent clip over the last four decades — and also that equipment is only a fraction of the equation.

Jack Nicklaus was over-the-hill in 1986 when he won the Masters. It came completely out of nowhere. Players in past decades didn’t hit their prime until they were in their early thirties, and then it was gone by their early forties. Today, it’s routine for players to continue playing until they are over 50 on the PGA Tour. In 2017, Steve Stricker joined the PGA Tour Champions. In 2016, he averaged 278 yards off the tee on the PGA Tour. With that number, he’d have topped the charts in 1980 by nearly four yards.

If equipment was the only reason distance had increased, then the disparity between the longest and shortest hitters would have decreased. If it was all equipment, then Ken Duke should be averaging something more like 280 yards instead of 266.

There are several things at play. First and foremost, golfers are simply better athletes these days. That’s not to say that the players of yesteryear weren’t good athletes, but the best athletes on the planet forty years ago didn’t play golf; they played football and basketball and baseball. Equipment definitely helped those super athletes hit the ball straighter, but the power is organic.

The other thing to consider is that the total tournament purse for the 1980 Tour Championship was $440,000 ($1,370,833 in today’s dollars). The winner’s share for an opposite-field event, such as the one played in Puerto Rico this year, is over $1 million. Along with the fitness era, Tiger Woods ushered in the era of huge paydays for golfers. This year, the U.S. Open prize purse will be $12 milion with $2.1 million of that going to the winner. If you’re a super athlete with the skills to be a golfer, it makes good business sense to go into golf these days. That wasn’t the case four decades ago.

Sure, equipment has something to do with the distance boom, but the core of the increase is about the athletes themselves. Let’s start giving credit where credit is due.

Your Reaction?
  • 192
  • LEGIT28
  • WOW2
  • LOL7
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP4
  • OB4
  • SHANK79

Continue Reading

19th Hole