Final thoughts on distance

3/9/01

Over the last few weeks in this space, I have addressed the subject of distance. Some people think that modern-day equipment allows golfers to hit the ball too far, and thus threatens the very integrity of the game. Anyone who has seen Tiger Woods hit a pitching wedge second shot onto the green at the 500-yard 15th hole at Augusta National might be tempted to agree with them. Maybe some of the great old courses would become obsolete if distance got out of hand. But in what other sport is an arena that was built 100 years ago still able to handle top-level competition today? Olympic stadiums go out of date in less than a decade.

My contention, however, is that most of our great old courses -- the likes of St. Andrews, Pebble Beach, Oakmont -- are probably not in danger of being made obsolete. As I wrote two weeks ago, if all the distance restrictions were removed from clubs and balls, the increase in average driving distance on the PGA Tour would only go up about 15 yards -- certainly not enough to panic about. But personally, I would still like to see distance controls on clubs and balls. Any increase in distance, even a small one, will contribute to making golf courses even longer than they are today, and thus make the game slower and more expensive. Slow play and the high cost of golf are the two big blots on the face of the game today. The USGA must address them both.

 

Last week we presented three options -- either roll back distance restrictions on clubs and balls, limit distance standards to where they are today, or remove all distance restrictions. Here’s how you voted:

Roll back in distance 23.4%
Limit distance to where it is today 43.6%
Remove distance restrictions 33.0%

 

There seems to be little appetite for turning back the clock, which perhaps is understandable. Voting for a roll back in distance is like voting for higher taxes -- even if it were in the best interests of the country, it’s a tough pill to swallow. People want more money, not less; similarly, all golfers want to hit the ball farther, not shorter. That’s why almost a third of you voted for removing all distance standards.

But the majority went for the status quo -- keep restrictions roughly where they are today. We may not like paying taxes, but we understand that it’s necessary.

 

E-Mailbag

I am planning to experiment with lead tape on my Great Big Bertha driver and wonder where to place the tape -- on the top, back, toe or heel of the head -- and what happens when I do this. I have seen recommendations before, but can't remember what they were. I use an 11-degree driver with a stiff shaft and would like to get the ball to fly higher. -- Chuck

 

Chuck, I don’t know if you’re a fisherman, but I think that applying lead tape to this type of a driver is like applying heavy duty duct tape to a lightweight top-of-the-line fly rod to change its flex characteristics. Rather than messing around with lead tape, you will certainly be better off by test-hitting some demo clubs, or a few of your friends’ drivers, and then investing in one that you like (the driver that is) or borrowing it when your friend is out of town.

 

I have graphite shafts in both my woods and irons. Not too long ago, I saw an advertisement saying steel gives more accuracy while graphite gives more distance. Would you elaborate on this subject? -- Gene Yelton

Gene, I am not convinced that graphite will be less accurate, but with a lighter weight graphite shaft you should be able to swing the clubhead a little faster with the same amount of energy than you would with a steel-shafted club. (This assumes that the head weight is the same in both clubs.) The reason for this is that the overall weight of the club is less than it would be with a steel shaft, as is the "Moment of Inertia" about the axis of rotation at the time of impact. Did you really want to know all this, Gene?

 

---

This column appeared on golfdigest.com where Frank contributes on a weekly basis. Check it out every Saturday.