Is Pelz Right? What does It Mean If He Is?

[HDPM]

Something I reread the other day got me thinking. If Dave Pelz is correct that tour players have a margin of error on their full shots of around 7%, what does it mean for luck playing a much bigger role in determining a winner of a tournament? What does it mean for all the added length now? For these purposes, let's look at an extreme set up, a US Open set up playing 7400 or more yards with very narrow fairways. On a 300 yard drive, if Pelz is correct, a good tour quality ball striker can expect to be 21 yards from the target. But if a good player can only expect to be within 21 yards of a target and fairway is less than 28 yards wide, is it a meaningful test or a random one? Same thing if a player dials back to hit it 280, in that event he can expect to be 19.6 yards from the target. A 28-30 yard wide fairway on a 270 yard drive as the guys in the '70's faced looks more generous I think. I think some of the fairways are the same as then, but I am not sure how much they are narrowing or where.

Also, if Pelz's position is correct that the 7% error is pretty steady through the bag of a tour pro, it has implications as far as the difficulty provided by adding length doesn't it? Courses have been lengthened obviously, in some cases holes have been lengthened because of an effort to get modern players hitting a similar club for the approach to the ones used in prior eras. In other words if a hole was driver 6 iron for Hogan and driver 7 iron Nicklaus, people want to make it driver 7 iron or 8 iron for a modern pro, rather than driver gap wedge. OK, so lets say after the 300 yard drive the pro now has a 180 yard shot instead of a 160 yard shot. If pelz is correct that the margin was steady through the bag of pros then, isn't a 180 yard shot tougher even though the ball goes longer? If he is correct isn't it true that Tiger would rather face a 160 yard shot with a shorter ball because he could expect to hit it about 4.5 feet closer to the hole? Should par 3's be left alone and longer holes lengthened some to get modern players closer to old landing zones?

If Pelz is right shouldn't we applaud the pros now rather than saying the old equipment made it so the players then were somehow better than those today?

I think the equipment needs to be dialed back, but not simply to provide a different test to the top miniscule percentage of golfers who play in the biggest tournaments. There are other factors that play into it like time and expense of playing and the expense of building courses.

Anyway, I think a lot of what the USGA does in setting up a course is kind of dumb, but looking at what pelz said got me thinking about it in a different way. If a 200 yard shot is tougher than a 150 yard shot regardless of the number stamped on the bottom of the implement used to hit it, shouldn't we allow pros to shoot lower scores than in past years at reasonable set ups, knowing skill played a role and not simply the balls and clubs? I also wonder if pelz's numbers are about the same now as then, I am not sure exactly when he compiled his stats or if he keeps them up to date. I also can't verify his numbers. Along these lines, if Shotlink data were available it could be used to determine exactly how accurately the pros hit it today. AFAIK the public doesn't get much shotlink data, I dunno how the Tour doles it out or uses it or who has access to what.