Opinion & Analysis

Does the Golf Ball Go Too Far?

Published

6 years ago

Dec 7, 2017

Recently we have heard everyone discussing whether or not PGA Tour players hit the golf ball too far. Everyone from Tiger Woods to Brad Faxon, Brandel Chamblee, Mike Davis, and Wally Uihlein have weighed in with their thoughts. I myself have struggled with what side of the fence I should be on, so I wanted to learn more about it before I made a judgement.

Because I am a golf nerd, I decided to do a little digging.

My first question in all of this is, what is too far? How do we judge that the golf ball or distance has reached a point where it is diminishing the product for our viewing pleasure? How do we know if technology and distance have effected the integrity of the game? Too far is a statement of relativity. One-hundred years ago, it could have taken you 12 hours to travel 200 miles. Now you can fly Los Angeles to Sydney in that same amount of time.

When Harry Vardon was winning championships early in his career, he and every other competitor exclusively used the gutta percha golf ball with his name on it, “The Vardon Flyer.” The gutta percha was invented in 1848 and used until a new ball came into play in the early 1900’s. This new ball was the Haskell Rubber ball invented by Coburn Haskell and Betrum Work. It was the first rubber ball that was a complete game changer. Despite is obvious performance enhancements and distance gained, however, many of the top players were slow to begin to play the new ball. In fact, it took Harry Vardon almost 10 years to make the switch. I can imagine they were having the same conversations back then that we are having today.

There are tons of examples of this throughout golf history, and although there have been limitations on technology there has never been a roll back in the golf ball. The ball has always won out. So I ask myself and you why now are we claiming that the ball is going too far? I decided to compare scoring average on the PGA Tour to driving distance and golf course length. Below in the graphs you will see what I found.

First, I must say it is very difficult to find accurate data on driving distance and scoring average before 1980. From 1980 to present time, this information has been tracked by the PGA Tour, so I decided to only look at the past 37 years for an example. Since 1980, the PGA Tour median scoring average has gone from 72.3 to 70.995 in 2016. That is a difference of 1.305 shots or a change of 1.8 percent over 37 years. The lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour has gone from 69.73 to 69.17. That is a difference of o.56 strokes or an 0.8 percent of change. So yes, scoring average has gotten better. Is this because the golf ball is going farther?

Let’s now look at driving distance on the PGA Tour since 1980 in the chart below.

In 1980, the median driving distance on the PGA Tour was 256.7 yards. In 2016, it was 290.1 yards. That is a gain of 33.4 yards over 37 years, or about 1 yard per year. This is a percentage change of 13 percent. The longest hitter in 1980 averaged 274.3 yards. In 2016, the longest hitter averaged 314.5 yards, an improvement of 40.2 yards. That’s a percentage change of 14.6 percent. PGA Tour players in 2016 hit it a lot farther than they did in 1980, yet scoring averages haven’t changed much. Is this because golf course length has kept up with distance gained?

Finding course length information since 1980 was difficult. I decided to only look at the majors championships as examples, where data is more plentiful. From here, I made the decision to only use the U.S. Open and PGA Championship. Unlike the Masters, they are played on a different course every year. As for The Open Championship, it’s generally a different kind of golf where distance and strategy can hinge on the elements. I felt as though this was the best representation for all courses on the PGA Tour. In the chart below, you will find the average course length of the U.S. Open and PGA Championship from 1980-2016.

As you can see, golf courses have absolutely gotten longer. For this chart, I will compare the shortest average length (1981) to the longest average course length (2015). I am doing this because of the smaller data sample size and I believe this would more correctly illustrate the average of all PGA Tour courses. From 1981 to 2015 the golf course length increased by 791 yards (6807 yards to 7598 yards). That’s an increase of 11.6 percent.

For review, we have seen scoring average decrease by 1.8 percent, driving distance increase by 13 percent and course length increase by 11.6 percent. The difficult part about looking at this much data is always trying to interpret it. How is the data helpful, and what story does it tell?

Let’s revisit the driving distance chart one more time with some timeline reference points to paint the picture in a clearer way. These are some of the biggest technological advances in golf since 1980, and they tell a fantastic story of why we saw certain leaps in distance over a short amount of time.

From 1991 to 2000, the decade of the introduction of bigger metal woods from the 190-cubic-centimeter Big Bertha to the 300-cubic-centimeter Titleist 975D, there was median distance increase of 4.7 percent (12.3 yards).
Just in the year from 2000–2001, which saw the solid-core Titleist Pro V1 introduced in October of 2000, there was a median distance increase in 2.3 percent (6.3 yards).
From 2002–2003 (TaylorMade introduced the adjustable-weight R7 driver on Tour in 2004), there was a median distance increase of 2.4 percent (6.6 yards).

In just 4 short years (2000–2003), the median distance on the PGA Tour increased by a whopping 4.9 percent (13.4 yards). Of course, there was a necessary and actionable reaction to this by the USGA when it limited the driver to 460 cubic centimeters following the 2003 season and finalized the COR limit. Since 2003, we have only seen a change in median distance of 1.2 percent, or 3.5 yards. I believe this gain in distance can be explained by better fitting and the presence of launch monitors like TrackMan on tour. There has also been more adjustability added to drivers and several upgrades in shaft technology.

What I don’t understand when looking at this data is why are we just now saying the golf ball is going too far. It seems to me we are 15 years too late in noticing.

Your Reaction?

LIKE215
LEGIT25
WOW12
LOL8
IDHT2
FLOP5
OB2
SHANK20

Related Topics:featured

Up Next

Yo, GolfWRX: “What’s the most overrated golf course?”

Don't Miss

WATCH: How to Finish Polishing a Ferrule

Hunter Brown

PGA Member and Golf Professional at Biltmore Forest Country Club in Asheville, NC. Former PGA Tour and Regional Representative for TrackMan Golf. Graduate of Campbell University's PGM Program with 12 years of experience in the golf industry. My passion for knowledge and application of instruction in golf is what drives me everyday.

25 Comments

GolfCodeWeekly.com

Dec 8, 2017 at 1:25 pm

Yup the increases in the last 10 to 15 years are almost nil, i really do not get the problem, golf is fine, the ball is fine

Reply Report comment
HDTVMAN

Dec 8, 2017 at 11:49 am

When I play, the ball doesn’t go both far enough & straight enough! I’d also like to see a chip which incorporates my watch to find the ball when it goes anywhere but the fairway, which it tends to do!

Reply Report comment
Rich

Dec 8, 2017 at 11:04 am

Let the Ball fly.. I like distance and to see it fly far is exciting.. The course design should be made narrower deeper ruff more trees and sandtraps and more water . Make it more of a gambler course.I don’t like these -21 under scores .What ever happened to these under -10 course score total for the event? That’s why most people love the OPEN (US,British) because they are low scoring and a test of the skill of a player to play the course where does the risk worth the reward ! The tougher the better with some RISK/REWARD when ever available . I like to see the distance but also I want to see accuracy with the yardage.

Reply Report comment
Mark

Dec 8, 2017 at 8:59 am

The most interesting part of this to me is the distance gains prior to the introduction of the Pro V1. Looking at the chart it appears there is about a 20 yard gain from 93-00. There is another increase after the introduction of the Pro V1. To me this speaks to the complexity of the distance discussion. It can’t be reduced to only the ball. There are a lot of other factors involved.

Think about how much more advanced we are in all the different areas like driver tech, shafts, athletics and power generation, biomechanics, launch conditions, etc. Sure rolling the ball back could reduce median distance, but it’s far from the only factor.

Reply Report comment
RJM

Dec 7, 2017 at 9:23 pm

They have also talked about lowering the speeds in auto racing (granted, for primarily safety reasons) but how many fans would the sport lose, say, for the Indy 500, if the top speeds were limited to 180 or 200. People go to golf tournaments to watch PGA players hit the snot out of a golf ball. Knowing that DJ, Jason, or Rickie is somehow going to be “limited” off the tee or from the fairway takes a boatload of interest out of the game.

Reply Report comment
jeff

Dec 7, 2017 at 8:30 pm

#Whocares?

The longest hitters aren’t the only ones winning…

Sounds like a bunch of old codgers irritated their old antiquated records could one day be broken, and the golf channel stirring up something to talk about during the off months. Get over it. The game SHOULD be made easier, not harder, want the game to stick around a while longer and grow? Although data shows its hardly been made easier…. The game needs to progress, I understand keeping the integrity of the game, but there is a fine line of overdoing that to the point of people just saying “forget it, golf is too hard, too expensive, and way to much trouble to deal with, i just want to have fun with my buddies”

The tour players are better athletes now, the equipment is better, the ball is better, the courses are longer, firmer, and harder faster greens. Swings technique is better, availability to data and what ACTUALLY makes the ball go further or roll longer is easier to get and more readily available. It all adds up to hitting the ball further. Again, why is this a bad thing? To say they used to be hitting 3-4 irons and now wedges? Thats not a diff of 33 yards, its a diff of 100 yards. 33 yards is a 1-2 clubs max. Not to mention todays “5” iron is actually a 3 or 4 iron loft of old… its like the 30 handicapper saying he hit is 8iron 180 yards, well maybe? But more then likely its actually a juiced up 5-6 iron… but who cares? Ain’t no tour pro hitting a wedge in from 215 yards when he used to have to use a 3 wood from 250 because of a ball.

I sure hope the people complaining about the ball going to far and the game becoming too easy, are the same people still riding a horse to work, and going to the haberdashery to get a new button for their will jacket they made themselves… They better not be using Amazon, or Nordstrom.com to buy their suits…. You all better not be using any form of technology to make things easier and better.

Get over it, it doesn’t matter, the game is hard enough. Every sport progresses, the athletes become stronger, faster, smarter. Its called evolution, and with out it, the game dies.

Reply Report comment
Carl

Dec 7, 2017 at 8:03 pm

It seems like many people are opposed to the ball going too far because it benefits the longer hitters. But restricting the ball isn’t going to take that advantage away. If anything, they will still be hitting mid-long irons where shorter players will be hitting hybrids or woods.

To me, the underlying problem for many people calling for ball rollbacks is that they don’t see length as equivalent skill-wise to a great short game or solid putting. I’m not sure why though because the tolerances for mis-hits and clubface to club-path are smaller when you are swinging at higher speeds. There is inherently skill involved to hit it long AND straight, just as there is skill involved in bunker shots or putting.

Reply Report comment
- henry
  
  Dec 9, 2017 at 11:55 pm
  
  this is spot on. should Rickie or Jordan be penalized bc they putt too well? Distance is a skill. Let the ones who can hit it far keep it that way. And the funny thing is, DJs skill would be even more celebrated bc hed be hitting 7 irons while other guys are hitting 5 woods.
  
  Reply Report comment
Terry Medlar

Dec 7, 2017 at 7:40 pm

I’m not really concerned about the distance the pros are hitting, but if you want to make a change, instead of changing/restricting the ball, why not just tell the pros they can’t use their drivers?

Reply Report comment
Jon

Dec 7, 2017 at 3:29 pm

Much ado about nothing.

Reply Report comment
Prime21

Dec 7, 2017 at 3:28 pm

Cigarettes & Alcohol have killed people for a long time, but they still exist. $ is the answer you are looking for, plain & simple.

Reply Report comment
Antoine Steeghs

Dec 7, 2017 at 2:56 pm

I think youcanlook at the masters. What clubs are used to the green? Are the using 4 irons 40 years ago and now 8 irons?

Reply Report comment
chinchbugs

Dec 7, 2017 at 2:40 pm

Can you make a shoe stink?

Genuine question…

Reply Report comment
Uhit

Dec 7, 2017 at 2:34 pm

…and you have to remember, that driving distance is in this case carry and roll.

Latter is strongly correlated to the course conditions and setup – fast and firm fairways.

The recorded carry distances show no increase in distance since more than a decade.

Reply Report comment
CB

Dec 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm

It’s not that the ball goes too far – it goes too straight. Because they have been designed so well aerodynamically, they tend to not bend as much as the old Balata and wound type balls – which is what Johnny Miller has been saying, as opposed to just calling out the problem of the ball flying too far. With forgiving heads and forgiving balls – the modern players are getting away with a lot of mis-hits that the old ball would not do as well, that you had to be a much better ball striker back then. But this current ball technology is part and parcel of all this tech of heads, shafts and balls, and to talk about rolling it back now, after Eldrick made all his money and success during his career from 2000 on – with the very balls that he wants repealed – is a joke.

Reply Report comment
- Hunter Brown
  
  Dec 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm
  
  Great point here and I agree with you to a point however if it were a problem I think we would see scoring average dramatically drop. If you look at swimming when the “shark suit” was introduced 49 world records were broken in 18 months. This is a dramatic drop and why they are now banned. We have not yet seen that kind of drop in scoring avg or records to suggest a ban is needed in my opinion
  
  Reply Report comment
- Andrew Cooper
  
  Dec 7, 2017 at 2:15 pm
  
  I agree 100%, how much straighter the new equipment goes is every bit as important. This is rarely spoken about. Courses have been lengthened proportionately with the new equipment, but have they been tightened up proportionately? I would imagine with measuring technology we could get a fairly good number on how much straighter the ball flies now. And let’s say we find it’s around 10% straighter (to pick a number) then bring in tour fairways by a similar amount.
  
  Reply Report comment
Barry Martin

Dec 7, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Yes, we are about 15 years too late, but there were guys – like Nicklaus, Geoff Shackelford, etc. – who were calling it out back then. But there were a chorus of people, led by Uncle Wally at Titleist who said “Nothing to see here kids, everything’s fine, stop whining.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

Reply Report comment
- Hunter Brown
  
  Dec 7, 2017 at 1:41 pm
  
  You are definitely right I remember Nicklaus talking about this a long time ago and that was kind of my point that it has always been a topic of conversation and why the USGA puts limits on how much it can improve. If we really do want to take away distance on the PGA Tour I think there is a lot easier and more simple way to do it. Just take away the tee. It would force players to use higher lofted “drivers” and would take away the advantage of hitting up on it. Now the unfortunate part about most of these solutions is that it will actually give the longer hitters even more of an advantage
  
  Reply Report comment
Greg V

Dec 7, 2017 at 12:09 pm

Hunter, you stated that there has never been a ball roll-back, but you are mistaken.

For 1931, the USGA reduced the maximum weight of the ball from 1.62 ounces to 1.55 ounces. The players didn’t like it, as the ball didn’t go as far, and it was more affected by wind. They called it the ‘floater.”

It might be time to look at a reduction in the weight of the ball again, as today’s ball and club technology afford much more control in the wind. If the USGA could roll back the ball in 1931, they can certainly do it again soon to keep course lengths for elite golfers from approaching 8,000 yards.

Reply Report comment
- Hunter Brown
  
  Dec 7, 2017 at 1:35 pm
  
  Thanks Greg I was unaware of this for sure so I appreciate you pointing it out. However it seems as though it only lasted a year so I would still contend the ball won out. Also what are your hindrances to 8,000 yard courses for pros? Also I have seen plenty of “shorter” courses hold the test of the pros. See Oakmont, Merion, Riviera, Shinnecock, etc. All of those cut lines in US Opens were significantly over par.
  
  Reply Report comment
Andrew Cooper

Dec 7, 2017 at 11:55 am

Good work Hunter. The stats show that the limits on balls and clubs have worked since the early 2000s, so it’s strange to be having this debate now. An unspectacular 3.5 paces forward over the last 15 years-not what the industry would want the golfing public to know maybe, but there it is. So if the rules are working why change?

Reply Report comment
dat

Dec 7, 2017 at 11:44 am

I think it goes too far, and nothing can be done to stop it. If in 15 years the ball goes 15 yards further, that will continue to make the game less exciting to watch. Driver, wedge into every hole is just boring.

Reply Report comment
Drew Boggs

Dec 7, 2017 at 11:26 am

You can make great short par 4s like everyone wants to see and just make them absolutely brutal. Risk/Reward holes get the most attention out of any course or PGA Tour venue. Example, #10 at Riviera. Arguably the greatest short par 4 on tour, and everyone watches it. If you roll back the ball, you are hurting the game of golf. Juniors will not be as involved, and everyone wants and chases the 300+ yard drives. It’s our game today and what it will continue to be.

Reply Report comment
Bob Jacobs

Dec 7, 2017 at 11:05 am

I think we need 10 more articles on ball go too far!!

Reply Report comment

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

Opinion & Analysis

Vincenzi’s Butterfield Bermuda Championship betting preview: Course specialists ready for title charge in Bermuda

Published

5 days ago

Nov 6, 2023

Matt Vincenzi

The PGA TOUR heads to Southampton, Bermuda this week to play the Butterfield Bermuda Championship at Port Royal Golf Course.

Port Royal Golf Club is a 6,828-yard, par-71 layout featuring Bermudagrass greens designed by Robert Trent Jones. This is the fifth edition of the tournament and marks the fourth time it will be the primary TOUR stop for the week (after being an alternate event).

The Bermuda Championship field is relatively weak but will feature a better field than last year with players such as Adam Scott, Lucas Glover, Akshay Bhatia, Cameron Champ, Alex Noren, Sam Bennett and Nick Dunlap making the trip. Fifteen-year-old Oliver Betschart will play this week, making him the youngest golfer to tee it up on the PGA Tour since 2014.

Past Winners at The Bermuda Championship

2022: Seamus Power (-19)
2021: Lucas Herbert (-15)
2020: Brian Gay (-15)
2019: Brendon Todd (-24)

Let’s take a look at several metrics for Port Royal Golf Club to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their last 24 rounds.

Strokes Gained: Approach

The weaker the field, the more I tend to rely on statistics. Strokes Gained: Approach is a great way to measure current form and shows who is the most dialed in with their irons.

Total Strokes Gained: Approach in past 24 rounds:

Lucas Glover (+29.5)
Russell Knox (+22.2)
Alex Smalley (+18.5)
Ryan Moore (+17.9)
Justin Lower (+17.0)

Fairways Gained

The rough at Port Royal Golf Club can actually be quite unforgiving, so it will be important to target accurate golfers. As evidenced by both Brendon Todd and Brian Gay winning here, distance off the tee won’t be much of a factor.

Total Fairways Gained in past 24 rounds:

Ryan Armour (+39.6)
Satoshi Kodaira (+38.5)
Brendon Todd (+37.6
Troy Merritt (+33.3)
Martin Laird (+32.9)

Strokes Gained Putting: Bermudagrass

This is an event that could turn into a putting contest. If the majority of the field is hitting greens in regulation, it might come down to whoever can heat up with the putter. Bermudagrass specialists will have the best chance to do just that at Port Royal.

Total Strokes Gained: Putting (Bermudagrass) in past 24 rounds:

Chad Ramey (+25.3)
Chesson Hadley (+23.0)
Martin Trainer (+19.2)
Brian Gay (+18.2)
Alex Noren (+17.6)

Birdies or Better Gained

In 2019, we saw the winner of this event at 24-under par. In two of the past three years, extreme winds made scoring difficult. Regardless of the weather this time around, the winner will likely have plenty of birdies.

Total Birdie or Better Gained in past 24 rounds:

Luke List (+22.7)
Adam Scott (+18.3)
M.J. Daffue (+16.1)
Lucas Glover (+15.9)
Carl Yuan (+11.9)

Strokes Gained: Short Game

The first three editions of the tournament have been dominated by the players who have the best short games on TOUR. An added emphasis on who’s the best around the green and putting should help narrow down the player pool.

Total Strokes Gained: Short Game in past 24 rounds:

Aaron Baddeley (+27.4)
Brendon Todd (+27.3)
Ricky Barnes (+24.7)
Scott Piercy (+22.8)
Stephan Jaeger (+19.8)

Statistical Model

Below, I’ve reported overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed.

These rankings are comprised of SG: App (25%); Fairways Gained (21%); SG: Putting bermudagrass (21%); Birdies or better gained (21%) and SG: Short Game (12%)

Brendon Todd (+1800)
Kelly Kraft (+13000)
Mark Hubbard (+3000)
Lucas Glover (+2500)
Ben Griffin (+2500)
Peter Kuest (+5000)
Alex Noren (+2800)
Adam Scott (+1800)
Dylan Wu (+5000)
Satoshi Kodaira (+22000)

Butterfield Bermuda Championship Best Bets

Ben Griffin +2500 (FanDuel)

Last year, Ben Griffin slept on the 54-hole lead at Port Royal but struggled in the final round, shooting 72 and slipping to a tie for third place. The 27-year-old came agonizingly close once again a few weeks ago at the Sanderson Farms Championship but missed an eight-foot putt to win the event and eventually lost on the first playoff hole.

Griffin played well once again last week at the World Wide Technology Championship, finishing 13th. The strong performance should increase his confidence as he heads back to a course he absolutely loves. In the field, Griffin ranks 8th in Strokes Gained: Approach, 11th in Strokes Gained: Putting on Bermudagrass and 21st in Strokes Gained: Short Game. His ability to score on shorter courses make him an ideal fit for Port Royal.

With a few frustrating Sunday’s early in his career, I believe Griffin has developed the necessary scar tissue to win the next time he finds himself deep in contention.

Taylor Pendrith +2500 (DraftKings)

Taylor Pendrith came close to winning this event back in 2021 when he had the 54-hole lead before shooting a 76 on Sunday. The Canadian is in excellent from coming into the 2023 version of the event. He’s finished 3rd and 15th in his last two starts at the Shriners and World Wide Technology Championship.

Despite being a long hitter, Pendrith has thrived on shorter courses throughout his career. He has top-20 finishes at Pebble Beach, Sedgefield CC, Port Royal and Sea Island. In addition to being short, those courses are all coastal tracks, which the 32-year-old clearly is fond of.

Pendrith is extremely talented but still winless as a PGA Tour player. a weak field on a course where he’s had success is an ideal spot for his breakthrough victory.

Marty Dou +7500 (DraftKings)

Marty Dou is another player who has thrived on the coast throughout the course of his career. He has top-5 finishes at TPC Kuala Lumpur and the Panama Championship on the Korn Ferry Tour and finished 17th at the Butterfield Bermuda Championship last season.

Dou missed the cut in his most recent start at the Shriners, but that was largely due to his losing 4.8 strokes around the green in his first two rounds, which is an aberration as he’s typically a strong player in that category. In his prior start at the Sanderson Farms Championship, the 26-year-old finished 12th and gained 6.6 strokes from tee to green.

Last year at Port Royal, Dou would have had a great chance to contend if it wasn’t for one bad round on Saturday (75). In his other three rounds, he shot 68, 63 and 68.

Dou has played all over the world and should feel comfortable playing in Bermuda this week.

Adam Long +9000 (DraftKings):

At last week’s World Wide Technology Championship, Adam Long hit 56 of 56 fairways for the week, becoming the first player to hit 100% of his fairways since Brian Claar at the 1992 Memorial Tournament. The driving accuracy propelled Long to a 23rd place finish, but El Cardonal wasn’t a course that necessarily required such precision off the tee. However, Port Royal Golf Club is a bit different. The course isn’t extremely difficult, but it can certainly be punitive to those who miss the fairway.

Even prior to last week (which had no shot tracer statistics), Long ranked 6th in this field in Fairways Gained in his past 24 rounds and 8th in Strokes Gained: Short Game, which are two of the areas I’m focused on when considering course fits this week.

Long has been a fantastic coastal golfer throughout his career, with top-5 finishes at Mayakoba and Corales. Port Royal is a short golf course so Long should have no problem keeping up with the bigger hitters in the field this week.

Austin Smotherman +10000 (BetRivers)

Austin Smotherman was a player who seemed poised to have a big season in 2022-2023 but struggled with consistency. Thus far in the fall, the SMU product has quietly strung together some solid performances. He finished 35th at the Shriners but gained an impressive 4.9 strokes on approach. In his next start, he finished in a tie for 23rd and went low on Sunday shooting -8.

Smotherman played well at Port Royal last year, finishing 22nd fueled by a scorching first round 62. He’s an accurate driver of the ball who prefers putting on Bermudagrass. He’s also had some strong finishes on the coast including a 5th place finish at the 2023 Mexico Open in addition to a handful of similar finishes on the Korn Ferry Tour.

This weak field may be exactly what Smotherman needs to kick start his career.

Carl Yuan +10000 (BetRivers)

Carl Yuan is the type of player who can contend seemingly out of nowhere due to his ability to go low. The volatility can hurt him at times, but it also gives him a higher chance of being in the mix on Sunday if he has it going on that particular week.

Yuan spiked at the Sanderson Farms Championship last month where he finished 6th and gained 8.8 strokes from tee to green. He is typically a poor putter but tends to roll it best on Bermudagrass greens where he is putts close to field average. In the field, Yuan ranks 5th in Birdie or Better Gained.

In his outstanding 2022 season on the Korn Ferry Tour, Yuan had some excellent results while playing on the coast. He finished 2nd at the Panama Championship and 3rd at the Great Exuma in the Bahamas. Ben Griffin and Akshay Bhatia both love that event, with Bhatia winning it in 2022, and both play Port Royal very well also. With some potential leaderboard correlation and Yuan’s ability to go low, he’s worth chancing at the Butterfield Bermuda this week.

Your Reaction?

LIKE6
LEGIT1
WOW2
LOL0
IDHT0
FLOP0
OB0
SHANK0

Opinion & Analysis

For whose eyes only? A review of Alan Shipnuck’s LIV and Let Die

Published

1 week ago

Nov 3, 2023

Ronald Montesano

I’m not encouraging you to skip the first 323 pages of Alan Shipnuck’s coverage of the rise and continued rise of the LIV golf experiment. The ship has sailed from port and the facts are etched in the Earth’s rotations. I’m suggesting that you begin at the end, with the paragraph at the bottom of page 324. It begins Amid all the speculating and pontificating… and ends with three words: changed golf forever. My reasoning is mildly complicated: I want you to understand what you’re taking on, for however long it takes to finish the tome. This story is worthwhile, but it is not a dalliance. It will take you back two, three, four years, to emotions that you had forgotten to lock away.

There were many prescient followers of the professional game, who considered LIV to be the second coming of Covid-19, albeit with a victim pool interested only in golf. There was a multitude of the lesser-informed, who latched onto words like betrayal, isolation, and sportswashing, in an effort to understand what was happening in the game of professional golf. Social media apps were awash in uncountable numbers of questions, opinions, accusations, and outright truths and lies, about what was going on with a league that snatched some of the best male touring professionals away from the PGA Tour.

It seemed that, with each passing moment, the massive We was more confused and more uncertain of the road map. Fortunately, we in golf have Alan Shipnuck in our midst. As with all the great writers on the four-lettered game that preceded him, Shipnuck mercilessly pursues a story that doesn’t matter for a moment. He pursues a story that defines an era, reveals character, and translates language not accessible to the masses. If Esperanto was the hope of the late 1800s, consider the language of the world’s wealthiest insiders to be Otnarepse. Very few spoke (or had interest in speaking) Esperanto, and even fewer have access to Otnarepsa. Shipnuck does.

LIV and Let Die is the factual recounting of how the kingdom of Saudi Arabia took an interest in golf, spurred on by an unforgiving, onetime lover of the PGA Tour. It is the story of how an English lawyer’s idea for collaborative golf at the highest level, was at best, emulated; at worst, stolen in the night, and massaged into something impactful. The tale collects a character roll-call that excludes hardly any names that you know, including some long dead.

I picked up my advance copy of LIV and Let Die on a Wednesday, and finished it by Sunday morning. It would have been sooner, so transfixed was I by reveal after reveal, but a prearranged drive through 9.5 hours of the USA, followed by a homecoming, delayed its completion. Along the path of pages, I recalled what it is that most agitates me about Shipnuck’s writing: he seems to take sides, then doesn’t, then switches, then switches back. His research and writing are measured and do their level best to present as many elements of the story, as can fit inside the cover.

There are moments when I wonder how Shipnuck is able to gain the access that he does, to the important persons that continue to shape this story. For some, their massive egos demand coverage and inclusion. For others, they admit that if their story must be told, it should be told by a writer who continues to produce volumes highlighted by thorough, accurate research.

Alan Shipnuck is direct and pointed in his commentary. He does not shy away from controversy, and at times, I wonder how he avoids bodily harm. His words can bruise, cut, and snap, but they are never fraudulent nor off the mark. His work is a welcome addition to the two centuries of golf writing that we may access.

LIV and Let Die traces the arc that began with the return of Greg Norman to the world golf stage, through the defection of the initial 48 golfers, away from the behemoth PGA Tour, to the ultimate announcement that the Saudi PIF would work with the US PGA Tour and the European PGA Tour (the DP World Tour) to continue the “evolution” of professional men’s golf.

Live and Let Die is unique reading -the rear of the dust jacket presents “A small sample of the bitching, bombast, and backstabbing found within,” instead of the amalgamation of quotes from fawning admirers and supporters. Shipnuck utilizes public and anonymous sources fluidly, in order to straighten as many of the story’s tentacles as possible. I suspect that you will find yourself backing up and rereading segments, and I encourage you to keep a highlighter handy for the taking of notes. This isn’t a college course, but hours spent reading are worth our time, to validate the author’s effort.

Your Reaction?

LIKE34
LEGIT6
WOW6
LOL1
IDHT0
FLOP1
OB0
SHANK12

Opinion & Analysis

Ryan: The lessons and legacy of Rose Zhang

Published

1 week ago

Nov 2, 2023

Brendan Ryan

During her dominant college career, Zhang won 12 out of 20 starts, leading her team to the 2022 NCAA title. On May 30, Rose Zhang turned pro after spending 141 weeks as the number one amateur in the world. Then, on June 4, she won her first LPGA event in her debut appearance.

There is no doubt that Rose is a star. The question is, what does Rose tell us about our system?

The question of whether Rose Zhang will be the last great American player to emerge from college is a compelling one. Her outstanding performance in college and successful transition to the professional circuit indicate that she possesses immense talent and potential. However, the landscape of women’s golf in the U.S. presents some challenges that could impact the development of future stars like her.

Rose Zhang represents the face of the junior girls’ and women’s college golf meritocracy. She has achieved success at every level, including winning on the LPGA tour. However, the system in the U.S. for women’s golf tends to breed overconfidence and lacks the necessary guidance to produce world-class players. While outliers like Rose Zhang may emerge, the future of women’s golf is likely to remain international, unless changes are made.

Photo via Adidas Golf

As a best guess, there are about 400 junior girls in the U.S. who are plus handicaps or have the chance to break par in tournament golf. In Korea, by the same estimations, the number is close to 1,500 (4x). This means that women’s junior golf is not a meritocracy: Even the very best junior events in America have, at best, 20 percent of the best players. Adding players from Europe and Australia, it’s more likely 15 percent.

The overconfidence in the system of junior and women’s college golf is on display weekly. The vast majority of even the best junior girls and college players have limited control and diversity of shots.

On average, most elite college or junior women would have about five different stock shots, while elite men’s college players would have an arsenal of 15-plus different shots with the biggest gap in short game shots and approach.

Each week, potentially dozens of college coaches (many of whom know nothing about golf) spend tens of thousands of dollars recruiting these players. This wrongfully reaffirms to kids that their development is on track and they are special. Once in college, even the most mediocre women’s college players will be treated to four-star accommodations, steak dinners, and trips across the country. However, this pampering doesn’t necessarily lead to excellence or skill development. Instead, at best it fosters comfort and overconfidence, setting up players for failure in both the short and long term.

The emphasis in junior girls golf needs to shift towards fostering a true meritocracy where more players have the opportunity to compete against the best, including internationally allowing them to gauge their skills accurately. Coaches and instructors must focus on enhancing players’ skill sets, ensuring they possess the diversity and control of shots required to excel at the highest level.

Furthermore, the system needs to put values back at the core of junior sports. The focus on playing golf should be fostering a kid’s passion and joy, whereby using the player’s internal drive to build skill. Instead, it’s likely that the current system’s reliance on external rewards may not provide the necessary motivation for players to continuously improve, challenge themselves, and find the process ultimately rewarding.

Rose Zhang represents the very best that our system has to offer. The question is how good is our best talent? My guess is not as good as we think. I think that should give us pause and have us re-evaluate the system to make sure that not only are girls prepared for professional golf but we are teaching them the values and giving them the experience they deserve along the way.

Your Reaction?