Average handicaps

My friend has been reading one of Bob Rotella's books. Apparently Dr. Bob reckons that 15 years ago (or 15 years before he wrote the book), the average hcaps for men and women were 16.2 and 29 respectively. He goes on to say that 15 years later these haven't changed. I'd be interested to get some views on why you think this is the case.

Am I the only one who's surprised that the improvements in technology over the last 15/20 years haven't reduced the average score? If we're to believe the manufacturers then we should all be hitting it longer, straighter and with more forgiveness. Maybe it just goes to show that no matter how much you spend on your new driver, you still need a technically sound swing.

Thoughts?

sh: Technology may have moved on as it always has done, but so too have courses. Many are now longer and plenty have had new hazards added. There will of course be more people playing the game now than 15-years ago, which will skew the averages in a big way, as there will be a much higher % of new players with higher handicaps. I wouldn't expect the average handicap to move up or down at all as the only way that could happen, would be if no new players joined clubs for 2-years. This would mean that players left would improve the average as they improved their game, as an example. It would obviously go the other way after 2-years when a new influx of players start playing with 28-handicaps

technology has nothing to do with it. and nor do the updated drivers compared to years ago.

Fact is that a greater proportion of golfers are incapable of controlling their yardages and as a result fail to hit the green from even as little as 50 or 60 yards. And putt like one-armed, no-legged herrings.

Do herrings usually have legs?

Davie wrote:Do herrings usually have legs?

they do if they live in the seas off Fukishima.

This is a really interesting thought and similar to one I had recently about the impact that technology actually has on the game.

Firstly to your point. I think that Doc offers a really good explanation in that the vast increase in people taking up the game will have had an effect. On from this, golf is now cheaper and more accessible than it has ever been so for a lot of those people that are just starting it will be at best a secondary hobby behind other interests because they can now afford to leave their clubs in the garage and just play a handful of times per year. This means that they will not be playing enough to get better but will still be part of the stats.

On to my thoughts on technology. I think that golf technology has had a big impact on irons and woods in that the average golfer can now hit the ball straighter and further with less skill than they could before. However, I do not think that it has had anywhere near the impact on better players. As an example, one of my local courses has not changed a great deal in the past 10 years yet my drives and irons in have also not changed despite the changes in technology. These two points then led me on to reaffirm my thought that woods and irons have very little impact on golf scores and it is all to do with chipping/pitching and putting. Putters and wedges have hardly changed at all over the years and this will also explain why handicaps have also remained unchanged...

I think in one of the Dave Pelz books the same observation is made and he claims that it is due to no increase in ability within 100 yards, or in fact technologies capabilities to help us improve this skill set.

I think you would need to have a much deeper analysis than just the average handicap to judge how technology has affected the game. It could be that all it has done is change the yardage left to the green for the second shot. After that we may be getting less accurate as the chance of a catastrophic shot is low. This does not mean that the technology has made it more likely to hit the green just a bad shot will not be as severely punished.

It still means another shot is needed to reach the green and will most likely be within 100 yards, where technology has no help to offer.

Interesting points.

Mac - agreed, much more analysis needed to make a proper judgement.

Saying that, this stat alone should be enough to convince anyone that you're better off practising the short game than forking out £300 on a new driver.

shclaff wrote:Interesting points.

Mac - agreed, much more analysis needed to make a proper judgement.

Saying that, this stat alone should be enough to convince anyone that you're better off practising the short game than forking out £300 on a new driver.

Not at all. Without hitting a decent tee shot you're not going to be in a position to capitalise on a decent wedge game.

So many people try to break the game down into bits and say... that's the only thing to practice or spend money on. Fact is to play the game you need to have the right equipment and an all around ability.

Don't forget the oft quoted statistic that 90% of golfers worldwide never break 100. I don't know the truth of this statistic (some sources even have it at 95%) but even if it's inflated it's surely a pointer to the fact that there are a LOT of golfers at the high end of the scale

Davie wrote:Don't forget the oft quoted statistic that 90% of golfers worldwide never break 100. I don't know the truth of this statistic (some sources even have it at 95%) but even if it's inflated it's surely a pointer to the fact that there are a LOT of golfers at the high end of the scale

My dad never breaks 100 and he's a big bloke... but I wouldn't say he's 90% of golfers. I mean he's a cabbie but he's not got that much extra weight round the middle.

LJ - You're absolutely right, you do need to hit a decent tee shot to capitalise on a decent wedge game.

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying you don't need to hit a good tee shot, and I wasn't saying you only need to practice your short game. I was saying, if you're looking to lower your scores (and believe me, I am!), you'll have more success practising your short game than spending £300 on a new driver.

Not always.

I have a very solid short game. But I hit far fewer fairways than I would like... In my case I'm actually in the process of changing my entire swing. But I could also have gone with a quick fix to my driver. (As it happens I love my driver and am not going to change it... but its cost me a lot more than 300 quid over the lifetime of the club)

LJ

The point I was trying to make is that there is not a high enough accuracy improvement from new technology to improve driving stats to the point that it vastly improves scores.

In fact can anyone find any evidence that suggests new drivers do improve accuracy and not just put the ball further into the trees?

you would need sampling of average golfers from 20 years ago vs today Mac. I don't think anyone will have captured that.

But they are more forgiving and as a result there will be an increase in accuracy due to MOI enhancements and the like.

I think that you can see that there is an accuracy gain in recent years when it comes to irons. Most players couldn't hit a barn door with a blade... but the massive cavity backs and the like allow for Poopie to still fly true(ish).

The same will be true of drivers.

---------------------------------------------------------


Thats funny. Mis-hits without the '-' has been profanity filtered!

LJ

I think the accuracy improvement question could be answered scientifically. Just attach some old and new clubs to one of those robots that the manufacturers have. No idea why they would try it as marketing campaigns may be in ruin should they get the wrong answer.

I'm not so sure that the average golfer's accuracy has actually improved with technology but I believe this to be because the average golfer has changed in that time. 20 years ago, golf was relatively more expensive so the average golfer would be more committed to the game because of the initial outlay. Now that golf is much much more popular and a hell of a lot cheaper, I believe that the average golfer would be someone that has golf as an occasional hobby along with other hobbies. This low cost means that they are happy to play the odd round without feeling obliged to play regularly because of the cost of clubs.

Further to this, good golfers have not really got any better or benefitted a great deal from technology because ball striking was never an issue with woods and irons and this is where nearly all of the improvements have come.

I agree with LJ that reducing the game into bits does not always work when trying to improve but a solid golf swing will last longer than a solid short game. If a golfer does not have the chance to play and practise as much as they would like then they will more than likely find that on the course their woods and irons will not bee too much worse than it was last time they played but their short game will be much worse because they have lost their touch. And obviously the stats on most courses do not lie - to shoot a regulation level par on most golf courses half your score will be putts, you will hit wedges into short par 4's and all the par 5's leaving woods and irons as the least used parts. The skewed importance of the short game and putting compared with irons and woods explains why all levels of average golfer have not improved to any significant degree.

I would imagine they already have and thats the reason they can say they can provide more forgiveness over older drivers.

But what does more forgiving mean? For sure with a modern driver a shot right off the toe will go much further with a modern driver than it would with an older driver.

But does this translate to more accuracy? An open club face is an open clubface, how can that change. Maybe better tailoring shafts to players specific needs could help a little.

I think they can claim the more accurate tag as the MOI has increased. Meaning that an off-centre hit will not twist the clubface to the same extent as previously. Thus creating a straighter ball flight over what you may have had with a 10 year old model for example.

Thus they are more forgiving.

the open clubface thing is different and there is a chance that the tech reduces the amount of side spin imparted. But those are still going offline. It's just a matter of degrees.

Mac I reckon that the driver and fairway wood market is still huge, and every few months the big boys will bring out the latest driver. Its a marketing mans dream, and each year sees so-called new technology etc, and this years favourite is 'white being the new black'. All this is fine as far is it goes, but the manufacturers are already near the end game of devlopment of drivers, unless the powers that be allow something else in/change the rules. So most of the big boys will say its now guaranteed to hit longer/have more head speed etc, when all they've done is put a slightly longer shaft on the head. They hope we're all gullible, but buying something off the shelf that looks good is not the answer because it makes no difference how good the technology is, if its set up wrong. You may try it out and think yes, thats good, but you should really have the shaft that suits you and have the head tweaked to ensure its custom fitted for you. So it makes more sense just having your existing driver looked at, because you'll probably find that you'll get better results for a fraction of the price.

Nike are just about to launch the latest in ball technology, thats supposed to add an extra 3mph at impact, which equates to 3 extra yards per mph - so a maximum of 9-yards.
http://www.golfwrx.com/2011/02/26/20xi-golf-balls-from-nike/

Shafts and balls is where the R&D cash is going

Doc if they pull that one off I'll be looking at it.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Doc if they pull that one off I'll be looking at it.

4-years in the making apparently and being used on the PGA Tour now by a few Nike players.

http://www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/en_US/daily_news/february/article20110216.html

Guaranteed to cost a bit then??? I suppose there will also be a need for different variants depending upon club head speed, otherwise it's one sze fits all, which doesn't work. Or it will have to be for players of a certain swing speed, which won't stop many players from buying them anyway and hoping they work for their game .... Classic case is that both you and I have been using the Bridgestone Tour B330, until I discovered my speed had dropped. Have used the calloway Solari and liked it, and am trying the Srixon Z Star White at the minute, again not a bad ball at all

I assume thats April 29th for the scum-sucking yanks rather than us upright brits. Shame really.

And I do remember you saying your speed had dropped slightly. Did you try the S or RX? Or even the RXS?

I played a few holes with a S once. It went straight back in the bag when I hit a 9 iron to a few feet that then spun away some 35 feet. I was not impressed!

LondonJonnyO wrote:

Davie wrote:Do herrings usually have legs?

they do if they live in the seas off Fukishima.

Oh. Like that one .

On topic. Personally, I don't think it's surprising. Nowadays, it's all "forgiveness-this, torque-that, ball-speed-the-other" etc etc. It's about how this club/that shaft/the-other ball can make you hit it further etc etc. People think they can buy a game.

You have drivers with sub-50g shafts at ~46" and people expect to get in on the short grass?? Not a chance, at least not with any consistency. I think it's all marketing guff; talking to many at our club and watching the practice grounds almost no-one practices. Occasionally people will hit a few balls but, as Hogan once said, "the secret's in the dirt" (or some other Zen-speak) i.e. it's about practice, practice and more practice. Allied with some solid fundamentals obviously.

The modern gear is great in that it gets many to stay with it for longer than they would otherwise have done if all that were available were some butter knife blades for irons. Still need to put the hours in though and I don't think many are. Just my two penneth.

I believe it is also true that scores in pro tournaments, while showing some improvement, are not hugely different today from 20 years or even longer ago? Anyone got the details?

puligny wrote:I believe it is also true that scores in pro tournaments, while showing some improvement, are not hugely different today from 20 years or even longer ago? Anyone got the details?

Now that is a hard one to quantify! Courses being longer and players taking a different attitude towards health and fitness would have a really big impact on those stats. Regardless though, I agree that the pro's don't appear to be scoring any lower than they were twenty years ago. I'm sure that I've also seen the odd +300yd drive on Shell's wonderful world of golf which is certainly more than twenty years old! Points to chipping and putting's effect on scores again though because these are the elements that are relatively untouched by technology...

In a recent PGA event Phil was the worst in the field for fairways hit, yet 2nd in greens in regulation and was runner-up. Bubba Watson is known for being a smasher of the ball but can back it up with some brilliant saves and putting. Seve was wild but had the best ever scrambling game. Phil and Tiger were wizards of the short game, and recently we've seen Luke apply some brilliant short stuff to back up his exceptional iron game.

Anyone who can get close with short irons will have a great chance and if the player is cool with the wand he stands a great chance of winning the event. Wedges from the fairway, rough and sand allied to a great chipping action and be able to play bump-and-run followed by putting ...... Short game doesn't need technology, just touch and feel .. 8)

The main reason for average handicaps not changing much over time despite the advent of more forgiving equipment being available in the modern era is that people still make the same rudimentary mistakes that they did in the old days, i.e being over-ambitious or attempting shots beyond their ability or with a low chance of being pulled off, poor decision making, not knowing how far they hit each club, not practicing the right things or not practicing at all, insisting on hitting driver at every opportunity regardless of the risk and having poor or non existant course management. If you don't get these things right, then it doesn't matter what you play with, your handicap will never show significant change in the right direction.

[quote="LondonJonnyO"]

shclaff wrote:Not at all. Without hitting a decent tee shot you're not going to be in a position to capitalise on a decent wedge game.

So many people try to break the game down into bits and say... that's the only thing to practice or spend money on. Fact is to play the game you need to have the right equipment and an all around ability.

Good point LJ: I watched the Andalucian Open last 9 holes on sunday and Lawrie' s course management on the back nine was an object lesson in how to play the percentages. He took 3-wood and utility and put the ball on the short stuff thus giving him the best opportunity to hit the green and either one or two putt. The chasing pack put added pressure on themselves by taking the lady Godiva too often and going 'off-piste' and ending up in the rhubarb or worse! At every level in the game it is about setting yourself up for the next shot and playing the percentages

Average handicaps will not change until the average handicap player changes their attitude towards the game itself. Many think that because the latest gear is more forgiving, has higher MOI and will make the ball travel further that all they need to do is open the wallet, buy the next big thing and they will get better and lose shots of their scores when in reality the only thing that will lower the handicap is consistency which is bred through correct practice. The latest technologies have to some extent made many modern golfers lazy in that they assume the club will be like a magic stick and do their will without training themselves to use it

The way they are marketed to as the biggest game improvement this and most forgiving on off centre hits that, aids these players in thinking well that will shave shots off, I've heard guys walk into shops and ask so how many shots will this club save me and only once have I heard an honest pro say NONE but practise with it and then it could be as many as you like if you put the work in.

Its true great wedge play and short game can save you shots, but I see the term as saving shots to mean helping you get away with a bad drive and not putting you over handicap that will not lower scores but simply stop them being higher. As LJ says you need all around game to improve after all much more chance hitting a wedge close from the fairway that the cabbage.

Luke Donald is mentioned time and again as the modern player to emulate something I only just agree with now but not in years gone by. Simply Luke was short and had very poor accuracy off the tee which meant all his short game did was keep him in the field, whereas in the last off season he himself admitted to spending more time on his driving and this year it has improved greatly still short but is getting straighter it is because of this allied to his short game prowess that this year he is now winning and in contention more and more. So more proof all around games needed.

As for Big Phil and Seve yes genius both of them but imagine how much more each would of won with a decent driving ability, Faldo short game was solid not even on par with Seves or maybe that of Phils but he won more majors than both men!

So back on point average handicap will not reduce until the practice with these new wonder bits if kit starts to happen

As an aside, and apologies if I've mentioned this before, Luke Donald's caddie (who is from where I play so we get some good gossip) used to caddie for Anders Hansen. At the start of last year (though his thoughts may have changed now), he said Anders Hansen was a far better ball-striker than Luke, but Luke's short game was phenomenal.