Lets take a closer look at distance off the Tee....

[Titleist99]

Over the last 40 years average driving distance for PGA Pros has increased 40 yards. It's been said that our classic golf courses are becoming obsolete and professional golf will suffer for it. People have suggested that we roll back the equipment or lengthen the courses where possible. Lets take a closer look at distance off the tee. In the last 40 years only 5 driving leader have at least one major championship and only three will be considered for the Hall of fame (IMO). Take note that the two greatest players of the recent generation is not on the list T. Woods and P. Mickelson. Most of the leaders hasn't had stellar careers, while distance is good I think that it is safe to say that our golf courses is safe for the time being with a little tweaking from the PGA Tour. Just my opinion. Agree or Disagree.....Note when J. Daly was averaging 300 off the tee the rest of the Tour was averaging about 267 yards. I don't think that a good Pro need to average 300 yards to compete on any track...

Disclaimer: All names, numbers and spelling are approx..

 

Here’s the average driving distance and overall leader for every year since 1980:

 

 

Year

 

Average Distance

 

Leader

 

Leader's average

 

 

2018 295.29 Trey Mullinax 318

2017 292.79 Rory McIlroy 316.7

2016 291.06 J.B. Holmes 314.5

2015 290.21 Dustin Johnson 317.7

2014 289.85 Bubba Watson 314.3

2013 288.00 Luke List 306.3

2012 290.07 Bubba Watson 315.5

2011 291.14 J.B. Holmes 318.4

2010 287.49 Robert Garrigus 315.5

2009 288.07 Robert Garrigus 312

2008 287.74 Bubba Watson 315.1

2007 289.08 Bubba Watson 315.2

2006 289.35 Bubba Watson 319.6

2005 288.88 Scott Hend 318.9

2004 287.32 Hank Kuehne 314.4

2003 286.30 Hank Kuehne 321.4

2002 279.84 John Daly 306.8

2001 279.35 John Daly 306.7

2000 273.18 John Daly 301.4

1999 272.45 John Daly 305.6

1998 270.63 John Daly 299.4

1997 267.67 John Daly 302

1996 266.49 John Daly 288.8

1995 263.55 John Daly 289

1994 261.84 Davis Love III 283.8

1993 260.36 John Daly 288.9

1992 260.52 John Daly 283.4

1991 261.44 John Daly 288.9

1990 262.75 Tom Purtzer 279.6

1989 261.81 Ed Humenik 280.9

1988 263.50 Steve Thomas 284.6

1987 262.50 John McComish 283.9

1986 261.58 Davis Love III 285.7

1985 260.18 Andy Bean 278.2

1984 259.61 Bill Glasson 276.5

1983 258.65 John McComish 277.4

1982 256.89 Bill Calfee 275.3

1981 259.66 Dan Pohl 280.1

1980 256.89 Dan Pohl 274.3

 

 

Taken from PGA>com

[80sFredriksson]

The more they lengthen the courses the more it plays into long hitters game and will continue to drive average distance up

[Titleist99]

Their fairways look like our greens......for TV purposes I guess...…..LOL!

[Roadking2003]

There has been very little distance gain since 2003 when the USGA regulated the ball distance.

[rushfan96]

 

[Sandhurst241069]

I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

[rushfan96]

> @rushfan96 said:

>

>

 

> @rushfan96 said:

> ![](https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/editor/av/vntnqk

 

[mahonie]

One thing to note is that PGA Tour include first cut of rough as ‘fairway’ for Shots Gained purposes which negates the need to be long and accurate...you just need to be long. Distance is easier for the OEMs to market. Length is mostly speed, accuracy is down to the skill of the guy with the club in his hand. OEMs cannot market for individual skill so they focus on distance to sell clubs and the PGA Tour is a major cog in that marketing ploy.

[Golfnutgalen]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> There has been very little distance gain since 2003 when the USGA regulated the ball distance.

 

I thought it was the 460 cc clubheads which led to the increase that year? Tiger didn't gain much additional distance until he switched to the larger clubhead (and longer graphite shaft) in 2005 as well.

 

back to the main data. The average driving distance has shot up 28 yards since Tiger Woods won the Masters in 1997. That number is massive.

[ALIF]

Boom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bladehunter]

You’re right. Distance hasn’t increased. I mean. Persimmon could make a comeback any day now. Heck you could play a 975D and lose nothing distance wise . 2 piece balls are the next retro fad. Lmao.

[15th Club]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> There has been very little distance gain since 2003 when the USGA regulated the ball distance.

 

This is incorrect, isn't it? First, the USGA has been limiting golf ball performance (not "distance") for almost as long as there has been a USGA (following, of course, the Royal and Ancient). Second, I think it is incorrect to say that the USGA "regulated the ball distance" beginning in 2003. The USGA doesn't regulate distance, per se. It limits initial velocity. Golf ball distance keeps increasing, via a number of factors. It is true to say that golf ball designs are little-changed since 2003. But distance keeps increasing. For several reasons.

 

And as always, it is the golf ball that is the one thing in the golfer/golf club/golf ball/golf course that is the easiest thing to fix. BY FAR.

 

There have been significant distance gains since 2003 in any event.

 

 

[bscinstnct]

”I don't think that a good Pro need to average 300 yards to compete on any track..“

 

 

I would venture a guess that 15 of the top 20 owgr average 300 yards or more.

 

And if you look at 1,2,3 owgr,

 

BK-309

Rory-313

DJ-312

 

 

It’s crazy, they all hit it 300. Even old man back fused tiger averaged 297.

 

I would think we are close to a threshold. But it’s not that they can’t hit it farther, there are just limits to keeping it in reasonable play if you keep hitting it farther.

 

I remember JB said on this episode of playing lessons with the pros (Stephanie Sparks! Oof ; ) way back that when he first came on tour, he would have no problem hitting his draw 330 *carry* but he couldn’t control it enough so he went to a fade. If you look at his first full season in 2006, he average 318. Five years later he was at 307.

 

 

 

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > There has been very little distance gain since 2003 when the USGA regulated the ball distance.

>

> This is incorrect, isn't it? First, the USGA has been limiting golf ball performance (not "distance") for almost as long as there has been a USGA (following, of course, the Royal and Ancient). Second, I think it is incorrect to say that the USGA "regulated the ball distance" beginning in 2003. The USGA doesn't regulate distance, per se. It limits initial velocity. Golf ball distance keeps increasing, via a number of factors. It is true to say that golf ball designs are little-changed since 2003. But distance keeps increasing. For several reasons.

>

> And as always, it is the golf ball that is the one thing in the golfer/golf club/golf ball/golf course that is the easiest thing to fix. BY FAR.

>

> There have been significant distance gains since 2003 in any event.

>

>

 

Why do people keep bringing these topics up?? There are multiple threads with thousands of posts. It’s been beaten to death and goes no where...

 

Looking at the data I would say 17 yards gain in 20 years is relatively nothing. There is so much that goes into those numbers that it’s not the ball, it’s not drivers it’s the players. It’s all of it. Goodnight.

[15th Club]

> @Sandhurst241069 said:

> I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

 

 

Yes, and yes.

 

"[T]he ball needs to be looked at for sure..." Absolutely. The cheapest, most fungible, least memorable thing in all of golf. Balls.

 

Now; about drivers. "...[A]bsolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control)." Well you probably won me over (and lost a number of GolfWRX readers) with your British spelling of "favour." I think you are right but it will be a very hard case to make, taking $399 drivers away from working class recreational golfers.

 

(Did you attend Sandhurst?)

[Hawkeye77]

How was that a closer look at the “issue”?

[15th Club]

Oh, and before anybody corrects me on the obvious;

 

The USGA has a very well-known and much-analyzed "Overall Distance Standard." In which a number of laboratory conditions are considered, in order to achieve a theoretical limit on distance. But it is not and never has been a physical limit on how far golf balls can go.

 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/equipment-standards/TPX3006%20Overall%20Distance%20and%20Symmetry%20Test%20Protocol.pdf

 

[15th Club]

> @QuigleyDU said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > There has been very little distance gain since 2003 when the USGA regulated the ball distance.

> >

> > This is incorrect, isn't it? First, the USGA has been limiting golf ball performance (not "distance") for almost as long as there has been a USGA (following, of course, the Royal and Ancient). Second, I think it is incorrect to say that the USGA "regulated the ball distance" beginning in 2003. The USGA doesn't regulate distance, per se. It limits initial velocity. Golf ball distance keeps increasing, via a number of factors. It is true to say that golf ball designs are little-changed since 2003. But distance keeps increasing. For several reasons.

> >

> > And as always, it is the golf ball that is the one thing in the golfer/golf club/golf ball/golf course that is the easiest thing to fix. BY FAR.

> >

> > There have been significant distance gains since 2003 in any event.

> >

> >

>

> Why do people keep bringing these topics up?? There are multiple threads with thousands of posts. It’s been beaten to death and goes no where...

>

> Looking at the data I would say 17 yards gain in 20 years is relatively nothing. There is so much that goes into those numbers that it’s not the ball, it’s not drivers it’s the players. It’s all of it. Goodnight.

 

 

I want to be really clear about just one thing: it does not matter to me, and it does not matter to golf's ruling bodies, if any further significant increases in hitting distances emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors. I am certain of that. And the reason that I am absolutely certain of that is because I was quoting from the USGA/R&A Joint Statement of Principles:

 

**The R&A and the USGA believe, however, that any further significant increases in hitting distances at the highest level are undesirable. Whether these increases in distance emanate from advancing equipment technology, greater athleticism of players, improved player coaching, golf course conditioning or a combination of these or other factors, they will have the impact of seriously reducing the challenge of the game. The consequential lengthening or toughening of courses would be costly or impossible and would have a negative effect on increasingly important environmental and ecological issues. Pace of play would be slowed and playing costs would increase.**

 

https://www.usga.org/equipment-standards/joint-statement-of-principles-892b2553.html

 

[mosesgolf]

Not sure what to do since the genie is out of the bottle but 13th at Augusta should never be driver wedge. I remember when Faldo beat Norman in 96 he hit driver 3 or 4 iron for his 2nd shot on 13. Th 13th hole should make you think about your 2nd shot risk reward etc. Not much to think about if you're hitting a short iron in there.

[Valtiel]

The thing that always confuses me about this argument is the human element. We look at distance and yell "Problem!" but we don't look at the fact that average SWING SPEED has been increasing over time in similar proportion. There are far more guys swinging over 120mph now than 10-20 years ago and technology has allowed for better optimization of the current tech, which HAS improved but would not be netting the gains that we have seen on its own.

 

The only thing that really makes sense is the driver size limit which, if smaller for the pros, would place an absolute premium on strike quality. Rolling back the ball is dumb because it hurts the shorter players too. Growing out rough/narrower fairways is good too, but this conversation has gone over and over and over again without anything new really contributed. Very much a dead horse.

[Sandhurst241069]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

>

>

> Yes, and yes.

>

> "[T]he ball needs to be looked at for sure..." Absolutely. The cheapest, most fungible, least memorable thing in all of golf. Balls.

>

> Now; about drivers. "...[A]bsolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control)." Well you probably won me over (and lost a number of GolfWRX readers) with your British spelling of "favour." I think you are right but it will be a very hard case to make, taking $399 drivers away from working class recreational golfers.

>

> (Did you attend Sandhurst?)

 

Sandhurst Golf Club .. Melbourne Australia ?

Just to be clear I’d only be looking at bringing driver specs back at elite level in the short-medium term (CC like the groove rule but perhaps on a longer term wait and see basis for the rest of us .. fwiw though unlike the pros I think the majority of ams would score better if they left that big dog at home!)

[gvogel]

> @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > > I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

> >

> >

> > Yes, and yes.

> >

> > "[T]he ball needs to be looked at for sure..." Absolutely. The cheapest, most fungible, least memorable thing in all of golf. Balls.

> >

> > Now; about drivers. "...[A]bsolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control)." Well you probably won me over (and lost a number of GolfWRX readers) with your British spelling of "favour." I think you are right but it will be a very hard case to make, taking $399 drivers away from working class recreational golfers.

> >

> > (Did you attend Sandhurst?)

>

> Sandhurst Golf Club .. Melbourne Australia ?

> Just to be clear I’d only be looking at bringing driver specs back at elite level in the short-medium term (CC like the groove rule but perhaps on a longer term wait and see basis for the rest of us .. fwiw though unlike the pros I think the majority of ams would score better if they left that big dog at home!)

 

I think that shrinking the size of the driver to about 230 cc (1/2 of today's limit), and rolling back COR (or CT) to about what persimmon was, would be very good thing for pro golf. The best strikers would benefit. It's time for bifurcation.

[15th Club]

> @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > @"15th Club" said:

> > > @Sandhurst241069 said:

> > > I think you need to extrapolate things forward a little more. Young players brought up with the modern 46 inch 460cc 300 gram “driver” - a new club introduced into the game of golf for all intents and purposes (lets call it the maxidriver!) - and now honed for the elite player in combination with the multi-layer solid core ball - are swinging harder and harder. Cameron Champ is not the end game here folks... eventually the outlier athletes with LDA swing speeds 150mph + will find their way onto the tour because the driver disproportionately favours speed over precision and manoeuvrability. The ball needs to be looked at for sure .. but I’d just as soon see the maxidriver rolled back to make driving the ball a more balanced skillset and re-introduce the element of risk when swinging all out from the tee... absolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control).

> >

> >

> > Yes, and yes.

> >

> > "[T]he ball needs to be looked at for sure..." Absolutely. The cheapest, most fungible, least memorable thing in all of golf. Balls.

> >

> > Now; about drivers. "...[A]bsolutely zero need for a pro golfer to be swinging a driver over 300cc and I’d favour a 270cc limit (which in practice would also keep shaft length under control)." Well you probably won me over (and lost a number of GolfWRX readers) with your British spelling of "favour." I think you are right but it will be a very hard case to make, taking $399 drivers away from working class recreational golfers.

> >

> > (Did you attend Sandhurst?)

>

> Sandhurst Golf Club .. Melbourne Australia ?

> Just to be clear I’d only be looking at bringing driver specs back at elite level in the short-medium term (CC like the groove rule but perhaps on a longer term wait and see basis for the rest of us .. fwiw though unlike the pros I think the majority of ams would score better if they left that big dog at home!)

 

 

So better than almost all of the readers here, you are acutely aware of what the 21st century distance revolution in golf equipment technology has done, to the historic world-class golf courses of the Melbourne Sandbelt.

[mahonie]

> @Valtiel said:

> The thing that always confuses me about this argument is the human element. We look at distance and yell "Problem!" but we don't look at the fact that average SWING SPEED has been increasing over time in similar proportion. There are far more guys swinging over 120mph now than 10-20 years ago and technology has allowed for better optimization of the current tech, which HAS improved but would not be netting the gains that we have seen on its own.

>

> The only thing that really makes sense is the driver size limit which, if smaller for the pros, would place an absolute premium on strike quality. Rolling back the ball is dumb because it hurts the shorter players too. Growing out rough/narrower fairways is good too, but this conversation has gone over and over and over again without anything new really contributed. Very much a dead horse.

 

I think the reason that swing speed has increased is because the new technology allows players to swing harder than ever before. Limiting the driver size is a good idea, but the ball needs to be addressed too if you want to place a premium on strike quality. Strike quality doesn’t only pertain to the driver but to every club in the bag. Controlling the flight and spin on the old balatas was what separated out the greats from the journeymen. Pro golf is dominated by journeymen now and is pretty boring to follow. I can’t even get excited by the Masters anymore it’s getting that bad. As interest in the pro game continues to decrease, the future doesn’t look that great and something needs to be done.

[15th Club]

> @mahonie said:

> > @Valtiel said:

> > The thing that always confuses me about this argument is the human element. We look at distance and yell "Problem!" but we don't look at the fact that average SWING SPEED has been increasing over time in similar proportion. There are far more guys swinging over 120mph now than 10-20 years ago and technology has allowed for better optimization of the current tech, which HAS improved but would not be netting the gains that we have seen on its own.

> >

> > The only thing that really makes sense is the driver size limit which, if smaller for the pros, would place an absolute premium on strike quality. Rolling back the ball is dumb because it hurts the shorter players too. Growing out rough/narrower fairways is good too, but this conversation has gone over and over and over again without anything new really contributed. Very much a dead horse.

>

> I think the reason that swing speed has increased is because the new technology allows players to swing harder than ever before. Limiting the driver size is a good idea, but the ball needs to be addressed too if you want to place a premium on strike quality. Strike quality doesn’t only pertain to the driver but to every club in the bag. Controlling the flight and spin on the old balatas was what separated out the greats from the journeymen. Pro golf is dominated by journeymen now and is pretty boring to follow. I can’t even get excited by the Masters anymore it’s getting that bad. As interest in the pro game continues to decrease, the future doesn’t look that great and something needs to be done.

 

 

Two things, as I voice my agreement with you.

 

1. Anyone who saw Tiger Woods up close in comparison to other professionals and top amateurs in the years before urethane balls knows how qualitatively different Tiger's game was. The inescapable conclusion is that Tiger would have been more dominant but for the changes in equipment from about 1997 to 2003. The worst myth in current golf is that anyone in the game wanted to "Tiger-proof" anything. Equipment changes effectively Tiger-proofed the game.

 

2. For anyone who thinks this debate is too well-worn; the equipment technology debate is the biggest, most important, most urgent discussion in all of golf right now.

 

[zmosnot]

The distance game eliminates the value of shot style that players used to embrace.

[bscinstnct]

> @"15th Club" said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @Valtiel said:

> > > The thing that always confuses me about this argument is the human element. We look at distance and yell "Problem!" but we don't look at the fact that average SWING SPEED has been increasing over time in similar proportion. There are far more guys swinging over 120mph now than 10-20 years ago and technology has allowed for better optimization of the current tech, which HAS improved but would not be netting the gains that we have seen on its own.

> > >

> > > The only thing that really makes sense is the driver size limit which, if smaller for the pros, would place an absolute premium on strike quality. Rolling back the ball is dumb because it hurts the shorter players too. Growing out rough/narrower fairways is good too, but this conversation has gone over and over and over again without anything new really contributed. Very much a dead horse.

> >

> > I think the reason that swing speed has increased is because the new technology allows players to swing harder than ever before. Limiting the driver size is a good idea, but the ball needs to be addressed too if you want to place a premium on strike quality. Strike quality doesn’t only pertain to the driver but to every club in the bag. Controlling the flight and spin on the old balatas was what separated out the greats from the journeymen. Pro golf is dominated by journeymen now and is pretty boring to follow. I can’t even get excited by the Masters anymore it’s getting that bad. As interest in the pro game continues to decrease, the future doesn’t look that great and something needs to be done.

>

>

> Two things, as I voice my agreement with you.

>

> 1. Anyone who saw Tiger Woods up close in comparison to other professionals and top amateurs in the years before urethane balls knows how qualitatively different Tiger's game was. The inescapable conclusion is that Tiger would have been more dominant but for the changes in equipment from about 1997 to 2003. The worst myth in current golf is that anyone in the game wanted to "Tiger-proof" anything. Equipment changes effectively Tiger-proofed the game.

>

> 2. For anyone who thinks this debate is too well-worn; the equipment technology debate is the biggest, most important, most urgent discussion in all of golf right now.

>

 

I agree...to an extent. Old clubs, old ball, staying the same for all, TW would have been even more dominant. But benefitted highly from the new ball tech.

 

As far as the modern driver leveling the field. I agree as well. But, had TW grown up playing it instead of having such difficulty transitioning to it, he may have continued to have “been more dominant” as well.

[Roadking2003]

This aspect is often overlooked;

 

 

[Sandhurst241069]

For sure .. Royal Melbourne composite is a completely different type of challenge for elite players now and has only one genuine par 5 (and that barely). Funnily enough though, the sandbelt courses in ideal very firm tournament conditions are better placed than most to defend themselves .. the PC should still be good to watch if it doesn’t rain and the PGA Tour (who have the setup reigns) don’t go with birdie pins to remove the angles / strategy. The 2018 Open at Carnoustie was still great for the same reason .. Parkland courses including the great old courses in the USA seem to be more vulnerable .. their defences based around length (gone), doglegs (driver flights now above tree tops) and rough (not such a problem with wedge) moreso than firmness, angles and bunkers that are genuine hazards..

[15th Club]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> This aspect is often overlooked;

>

>

>

 

 

Where did that graph come from? I think I know, but I am just going to ask it as a straight question for now.

 

I don't see a whole lot of correlation between the two data lines. I see coincidence. And what we all know beyond any sensible question is that the big rise in golf distance occurred with (first) solid core multilayer urethane balls and then with (second) the further development of 460cc driver heads and longer composite shafts.

 

I like firm, fast, bouncy, racy fairways. It creates interest in the ground game. Tour pros don't usually think of firm fast fairways as easy. They think that they add difficulty to their game.

 

As always and as I have specifically mentioned in this thread, nobody (that is, nobody in golf's ruling bodies) cares about "agronomy" or "fitness" or "launch monitors" or "swing speeds." All they care about is evidence of increasing distance, which is now coming in and is beyond dispute. That's it.