Agree. The primary sources of concerns are one notable course designer/18 major winner and the USGA representing course owners Not to mention their stake in the profit of the American Open. We don’t need an arms race to 8000 yard super tracks for maybe 1000 golfers worldwide. Looking at the driving distance of the “average” golfer, that number has been steady for this century. Local courses can be better land stewards without lengthening courses. To grow the game, more should offer “family” tees to get spouses into the game as well. New golfers with swing speeds at 75 mph and 120 yard drives can hardly get excited at a forward tee par 5 at 450+ yards

Between junior golf and physical training of which TPI is an excellent example, today’s pros under 30 are pure athletes well honed in their craft unlike golfers in the last century. Like the home run in baseball, the crowds love the 300+ yard drives. Let them go 20 under par at 7000 yards - who doesn’t cheer a birdie?

Thank you for sharing the link and useful info. From my perspective, before (1980) it was more about pure ball-striking mid and long irons. Now (1999), it is more about drive + distance gains and a solid wedge game. At the end of the day, the putter was and is and will always be the scoring club in a pro's bag.

I think the point that many of the "roll it back" folks is the $$$ spent to keep this avg at a similar number and more importantly be able to play on the iconic course's that we see as generational. Though I'm not a control distance supporter, when July rolls around and the big dogs head to St. Andrews for the Open we are potentially going to see that distance as made the course an insufficient test for the best in the world due to technology advances (ball, equipment and science like tracman) as well as improvements in athletic training. If there is no weather and wind, it could be crazy low scoring.

There are ways to keep the scores down across the board. I personally hope the keepers of the game find alternative routes than to kist "roll it back" as they say.

The question I would ask is that while scoring hasn't changed much, how much has average course length? Courses I grew up playing were often less than 6,000 yards from the back tees. My home club plays about 7,000 from the tips. Torrey Pines last year for the US Open was nearly 7,700. The Open in '85 was just under 7K at Bloomfield Hills.

I certainly don't play from back there, but 20+ years later we're all playing significantly longer courses than ever before to essentially the same scores. There definitely is something to the technology for sure. I'm perfectly happy with the advances in the equipment because it increases my enjoyment.

I agree with the advances in technology increasing enjoyment of the game. Personally, at 53 y/o, between maintaining strength, working on flexibility (TPI training has helped immensely, btw, highly recommend it), and advances in technology, my driver carry is 290 plus. Had you told me that 30 years ago, I would have laughed.

What I would like to find out is overall distance/slope of courses in the 80s vs today. They have lengthened many many courses over the years to combat the newfound distance technology is offering. Did they have 600+yd par 5s in the 80s? I do not believe so. Did they have 500yd par 4s in the 80s? I do not believe so.

I don't have the answer to this but I believe that would be a reason for relative scoring parity between then and now. Just my random thought.

Courses have gotten incrementally longer each year, fairways narrower, greens quicker, and hole locations more severe to curb scoring. The PGA Tour and setup committees have effective methods of controlling the scoring. That said, you can only make a golf course so long. Just watched the replay of the 2007 PGA last night... where they played it at 7,131 yards. This year, they will be playing it at 7,556 yards, and the scoring will probably be lower.

Great points, and I agree that courses can only get so long.

I agree. All great points.

I think the ultimate example of "effective methods of controlling the scoring" would be the
1974 US Open at Winged Foot, aka "The Massacre at Winged Foot". The cut was +13, and the winning score was +7 (Hale Irwin). Effective, indeed.

ESchroeder

A great bit of research. It does show that with all the equipment advances in balls and clubs, and the concentration on fitness for the best players in the world, the sport is still very difficult.

I agree, 100%.

Very hard to draw comparisons from different era's. Besides equipment and instruction technology advances, you have to consider golf course conditions from the 60's and 70's, Look up "Shell's Wonderful World of Golf" telecasts on YouTube from back then. Putting greens were cut like today's tee boxes and fairways were like today's first cut of rough. Just try to hit a Persimmon 3 Wood off of today's shaved down fairways. Yesterday was great yesterday and today is great today.

What really matters is that tour pros and we mere mortals still need to get the ball inside the hole. Comparisons are always going to be biased to a certain extent.

30 years ago the average handicap of a male in the US was 14 and a female was 24, today the average handicap for a male is 14 and a female is 24, so how has technology ruined the game. The best players in the world will continue to get better and make the course look easy, but they are the best players in the world its their job to do that.

My point, exactly.

Right on Gabe. I remember when Al Barkow, the then editor of Golf Illustrated, used to do the commentary at the end of every episode of "Inside the PGA Tour" from the mid 80's to the mid 90's. In one episode he was commenting on the influx of game improvement equipment in the mid 80's He explained how he got metal woods with graphite shafts, perimeter weighted cavity back irons, and a perimeter weighted putter. His comment was " So how come I'm still shooting 83?"

I think technology is just one factor. Driver distance avg spiked +24yds from 1995-2005, but has leveled off some at +8yds from 2005-2021. Titanium drivers were a hit, but solid core golf ball took golf to new heights. The human element, to me, has been nearly as fascinating. I remember in the 80's the idea of weight training was relatively unheard of for golfers; out of fear it would wreck the swing. Then players like Tiger took the baton from the likes of Gary Player brought athletes to golf. Where training and recovery programs are now year round. Look at Lee Westwood; he's in better shape at 49 than 27. And that's now trickling down, steadily, to weekend warriors.

i just played a course for the first time that on the surface would look quite easy 6100 from the tips - i am no slouch off the tee, but i quickly realized that this course made you play by their rules - i hit driver 4 times, faced bowling alley wide fairways, tricky doglegs, very well placed bunkers and water hazards. I think even par won on historically short Merion and something like 18 under won at historically long Erin Hills. I am old enough to remember playing balata golf balls and steel shafted drivers and guess what? i could get it around just fine, i shoot the same scores i shot almost 30 years ago. the one element that i am glad is gone is those encyclopedia sized green reading books for the pro's. however the use of a rangerfinder gives the amateur a caddy in the palm of their hand - something the pro's are given as an advantage over the amateur.

Great point not to judge a course by it's yardage. I played Sawgrass CC a couple of months ago. We played East/West which is 6293 from the whites slope of 138. It was blowing 15-20 mph all day. It was one of the toughest rounds I have ever played.

Equipment? Just insist on quality and durability that fall within the governing bodies specs.

Great discussion to bring up. From my quick review of the other replies, I didn't see any mention of 2 metrics that could be considered. The average is a good stat to share, and I always like to look at the median because I believe that gives a good idea where the bulk of the players fall in the scoring number. The average doesn't eliminate the extreme outliers; I couldn't find the median in the link you shared and I'm sure the PGA Tour has that number.

Another thing to look at is sharing the scoring average using one course as opposed to sharing the scoring average for the year. With one course as your reference, you can determine the changes to the course over the years and see how those changes may have affected the players' scoring average.

100%. The stat is definitely imperfect, but a starting point. Like you mentioned, median is more indicative, as well as courses year/year, weather, etc. It would be a very interesting study. One thing that just came to mind is average length of driver. I want to say it was mid/late 90's drivers started getting longer. I believe they were around 43" and have since worked they way up to 45.5". So many variables to consider. Mind boggling.