7 minute read

Bogeyman

Next Article
Sobbe Cup Recap

Sobbe Cup Recap

Reactions to USGA and R&A’s New Driver Length Rule

The Bogeyman

Dan O’Neill

(Editor’s note: This story appears courtesy of Morning Read (www. morningread.com)

Reaction to the recent announcement by the USGA and R&A concerning a reduction in maximum shaft length underlines how ambiguous and equivocal golf can be.

The announcement by golf’s governing bodies was issued in the form of a Model Local Rule, which essentially means it’s a suggestion, implemented or dismissed at the pleasure of tournament organizers or various tours. And the suggestion is that maximum shaft length for non-putters be reduced from 48 inches to 46 inches.

To bring it home, the rule is not being incorporated by the Allied Golf Associations and will not be implemented by the Metropolitan Amateur Golf Association, either at MAGA championships or USGA qualifiers. The only time you need worry about taking the lamppost out of your bag is if you qualify for one of the USGA, R&A, PGA or PGA Tour championships.

Therefore, the players who might be predominately impacted by this local rule are professionals, or PGA Tour members. “Might” is the proper context because only a tiny smattering of those members employ a driver that is longer than 46 inches. Among the few, the proud, the lengthy is Phil Mickelson, who stunned the sports world by winning the 2021 PGA Championship at the age of 50, and did so while using a 47½ inch driver.

Aware this governing announcement was coming, Mickelson was ripping the shaft-reduction recommendation before it ever got announced. He tweeted: “Stupid is as stupid does.” Mrs Gump. Really though, are the amateurs trying their best to govern the professional game the stupid ones? Or the professionals for letting them?”

Later, he added: “What data was there to say that the driver length should be capped at 48 inches? What data is there that says it should go to 46 inches? We’re addressing the wrong problem, and we’re misreading the data yet again much like the grooves in 2010.”

Mickelson has been at odds with the USGA in the past - least we forget 2018 and the 13th green at Shinnecock. But his comments shouldn’t be dismissed categorically. “Lefty” is intelligent and articulate about the game, cognizant of its history, sensitive to its nuances. In this instance, however, he doesn’t make a convincing argument.

For instance, when he won the Constellation Furyk and Friends in early October - his third Champions Tour win in four starts - Mickelson was 81st in the field in Driving Accuracy, and explained it thusly: “I look at longest, like I try to hit it the farthest out here and I was No. 1 in driving distance. That’s the way I look at it. If you want to look at stuff that’s irrelevant, have at it. What I’m looking at is distance, I want to hit it, I want to fly it 305 and try to - because I’m a really good wedge player, so if I get wedges in my hand, I’m going to be tough to beat.”

Sure, understood, you’re good with wedges. But the philosophy describes the essence of “bomb and gouge” golf. And that’s not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, at least not the architects among them. Accuracy is not supposed to be “irrelevant.” Fairways are designed and maintained for a reason, and it’s not strictly aesthetics. The golf bag harbors 14 clubs, not three. The concept of “where” should matter at least as much as “how far “… At least.

Does a 47½ inch driver allow a 50-year old to win the PGA Championship? Maybe. Is it a contributing factor to one finishing out of the top-20 in his 22 other starts during the same season? Maybe. Should one be empowered to hit a golf ball farther in his early 50s than he could 30 years earlier? You tell me.

Mickelson’s birthday is June 16. During 1993, at ages 22-23, he played his first full season on the PGA Tour. He averaged 269.2 yards in Driving Distance, 65.37 percent in Driving Accuracy. In the 2020-21 season, at ages 50-51, Mickelson averaged 301.8 yards in Driving Distance and 54.47 percent in Driving Accuracy.

His scoring average in ’93 was 71.205, his scoring average last season was 71.897. To suggest the distance/scoring numbers things are directly related is an over reach. A number of factors could be considered. To suggest accuracy and scoring is unrelated might be equally naive.

We’re addressing the wrong problem, and we’re misreading the data yet again much like the grooves in 2010.”

Mickelson has been at odds with the USGA in the past - least we forget 2018 and the 13th green at Shinnecock. But his comments shouldn’t be dismissed categorically. “Lefty” is intelligent and articulate about the game, cognizant of its history, sensitive to its nuances. In this instance, however, he

For instance, when he won the Constellation Furyk and Friends in early October - his third Champions Tour win in four starts - Mickelson was 81st in the field in Driving Accuracy, and explained it thusly: “I look at longest, like I try to hit it the farthest out here and I was No. 1 in driving distance. That’s the way I look at it. If you want to look at stuff that’s irrelevant, have at it. What I’m looking at is distance, I want to hit it, I want to fly it 305 and try to - because I’m a really good wedge player, so if I get wedges in my hand, I’m going to be tough to beat.”

Sure, understood, you’re good with wedges. But the philosophy describes the essence of “bomb and gouge” golf. And that’s not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind, at least not the architects among them. Accuracy is not supposed to be “irrelevant.” Fairways are designed and maintained for a reason, and it’s not strictly aesthetics. The golf bag harbors 14 clubs, not three. The concept of “where” should matter at least as much as “how far “… At least.

Does a 47½ inch driver allow a 50-year old to win the PGA Championship? Maybe. Is it a contributing factor to one finishing out of the top-20 in his 22 other starts during the same season? Maybe. Should one be empowered to hit a golf ball farther in his early 50s than he could 30 years earlier? You tell me.

Mickelson’s birthday is June 16. During 1993, at ages 22-23, he played his first full season on the PGA Tour. He averaged 269.2 yards in Driving Distance, 65.37 percent in Driving Accuracy. In the 2020-21 season, at ages 50-51, Mickelson averaged 301.8 yards in Driving Distance and 54.47 percent in

His scoring average in ’93 was 71.205, his scoring average last season was 71.897. To suggest the distance/scoring numbers things are directly related is an over reach. A number of factors could be considered. To suggest accuracy and scoring is unrelated might be equally naive. of weight, given the length limit has little or no impact on recreational types. The idea has been considered and discussed for a number of years, with several stops and starts, and with input and engagement from both professional and amateur players.

Research has been done and papers published that project gains in distance when the average player goes from 46 to 48 inches. At the same time, most players don’t use the longer drivers - currently - because they can’t control them as well. That is, the announcement is not reactive, it’s proactive.

“Is that the answer to hitting it shorter? No,” said Collin Morikawa, not a long hitter, but a two time major champion “You know, I think yeah, if you have a long drive and you see what Bryson (DeChambeau) did, you see what long drive guys do, they have a longer driver, right, and they’re able to hit it farther. But can you maintain that on the golf course?

“Hasn’t been done yet. Not saying it won’t be done, but you know like if a guy wants a 47-inch driver, I think they should let them because why not.”

Why not? Because in the 1990s the typical driver length on the PGA Tour was 43 inches and now it’s between 44 ½ and 45 ½. Why not? Because, left to their own devices, technicians and practitioners will push it to 48 and beyond.

Why not ? Because the game continues to become too much about power and not enough about precision. The shaft length limit doesn’t change the trend on its own, not even close. In fact, it’s just a recommendation. But it’s not a bad one.

This article is from: