Golf Course Effects on Hitting DistanceFindings from research conducted for Distance Insights primarily in 2020 and 2021.
March 2023

1 Introduction
On February 4, 2020, the USGA and R&A Rules Limited (herein referred to as The R&A)
published a Statement of Conclusions (1), Summary report (2) and Library of specific reports (3)based on research conducted for the Distance Insights project. That research endeavored to be
the most comprehensive review of the causes and impacts of increased hitting distance in thegame of golf. As a result, the USGA and The R&A concluded that “we believe that golf will best
thrive over the next decades and beyond if this continuing cycle of ever-increasing hitting
distances and golf course lengths is brought to an end.”
The following report summarizes research on a variety of golf course setup, conditioning, anddesign factors that could be used to influence hitting distance. It is important to note that thesefactors are not within the scope of governance by the USGA and The R&A, and their feasibility,
cost, environmental impact, and potential effect on hitting distance vary significantly from hole tohole and course to course. These factors also have varying potential impacts on the experienceand enjoyment of different types of golfers.
Our research throughout the Distance Insights project has shown that altering the design, setup,
or maintenance of golf courses in an effort to manage increased hitting distance often has
unintended or undesirable consequences in areas like resource consumption, maintenancecosts, and the perceived integrity of a competition or golf experience. Our research also showsthat these efforts are often ineffective or can even exacerbate distance issues. We believe thatthe contents of this report should be viewed through that lens.

2 Rationale and Considerations
Golfers intuitively understand that golf course factors like soil moisture affect how long aparticular hole or course plays. We have all played golf after a significant amount of rain andobserved that the course was playing longer than normal, but there has been little research into
the measurable impact that golf course factors have on hitting distance and whether those“levers” could be reasonably used to influence play. We firmly believe that taking ourunderstanding of the golf course effects in this document from anecdotal to objective hassignificant value, especially in the context of our ongoing Distance Insights research. We also
recognize the risk of this data being misinterpreted or misapplied. For example, watering
fairways in excess of turf needs can impact hitting distance, but it would also be environmentallyirresponsible, detrimental to turf health, potentially expensive, and a departure from the normsof golf course preparation for a competition or daily play. Placing a large mound in the landingarea of each hole would also serve to curb hitting distance, but at what cost financially and withwhat impact on the overall experience of playing a course or the integrity of the sport?
Translating the theoretical distance impact of these golf course factors into real-world outcomesis complex and fraught with challenges. Here are several important considerations about thesefactors that should be kept in mind as we evaluate their potential impact on hitting distance:

Page 1 of 19

•
•
•
•
•

•

Applicability – How relevant are these factors to various courses or holes within acourse?
Practicality – How feasible is it to manipulate these factors in a cost-effective andreasonable manner?
Sustainability – What impact does utilizing these factors have on resource consumption
and environmental responsibility?
Golfer Experience – Will using these factors to influence play for certain groups or
events have negative effects on the golf experience for other players?
Duration – Can these factors be altered on a short-term basis or do changes require an
extended period of time to implement? Can changes be easily reversed or are they
inherently long-lasting?
Integrity – Does using one or a combination of these factors to influence distancedepart from the accepted norms of what is considered a reasonable challenge in golf?

Some of these factors are widely applicable, but not practical in most cases – e.g., regrading
landing areas to stifle bounce and roll. Others are feasible at most courses but areenvironmentally irresponsible – like irrigating fairways in excess of turf needs for the sole
purpose of decreasing distance. Understanding how complex the interactions are between golfcourse architecture, maintenance, resource use, and golfer experience gives us serious
concern when we think about the factors in this report being used as tools to limit hitting
distance.
This data should be viewed with the understanding that the potential impact any of these factors
can have on hitting distance depends on a wide range of geographic and site conditions
including soil type, grass species, and weather – which makes their application and impact
inherently variable and inconsistent. Most of these factors also require an extended time horizon
to alter, which inevitably means the average player will be affected even if they are not thetarget audience. Almost none of these golf course factors can be manipulated without somecost, which for the vast majority of golf facilities would be money better spent in other ways.
Where golf course factors can be employed on a short time horizon, at minimal cost, and withno negative environmental impacts, there may be opportunities for reasonable application in
managing hitting distance. However, after conducting this research our belief is that thesesituations are the exception rather than the norm.

3 Golf Course Distance Effects Research Overview
3.1 Categories of Golf Course Effects and Outline of this Report
The findings presented in this document are categorized based on the ease of implementationof each factor. Setup factors can be changed on a daily basis. Course condition factors can be
adjusted with more effort and require longer periods of time to change. Finally, design factors
can be most readily implemented during the initial construction of a course or during arenovation at generally higher cost. There is overlap among these categories depending on howeach factor is being considered within a specific context. Table 1 provides an outline of thefactor categories summarized in this report.

Page 2 of 19

Report Section
4.2
4.3
4.4

Research Area
Setup-related distance factors
Conditioning-related distance factors
Design-related distance factors

Table 1: GOLF COURSE DISTANCE EFFECTS RESEARCH AREAS

This report examines twelve golf course factors which have been derived from previous
research and identified by the USGA and The R&A as those most relevant to distance. This
report conveys the results about the distance impacts of the factors listed below (placed into thecategory that fits best) regardless of level of impact:•••

Course Setup Factors
o Hole length (within the available tees)o Distance from tee to dogleg turn point (with available tees)o Penalty areas near the landing area (staked penalty areas)
Course Condition Factors
o Fairway firmnesso Fairway mowing heighto Grain directiono Fairway widtho Rough penalty
Course Design Factors
o Landing zone pitcho Landing zone elevationo Penalty areas near the landing area (physical obstacles)o Hole length (adding new tees)

3.2 General Linear Model of Golf Course Effects on Distance
Eight of the twelve golf course hitting distance factors were studied during the statistical analysis
project by Broadie (8) using six years of PGA TOUR Shotlink data from 2015 through 2020,
supplemented with USGA shot tracking data. In this analysis, a General Linear Model identifies
the relative contributions (Coefficient Estimates) of the different factors, showing the estimateddistance impact in yards of the factors as studied. The General Linear Model parameter
Coefficient Estimates, the Standard Error (a measure of the statistical accuracy of an estimate),and p-Value (the statistical significance) are shown in Table 2 for the variables studied.
Parameter
Intercept
Course Elevation
Fairway Width at 300 yds
Fairway Firmness Medium
Fairway Firmness Soft
Fairway Firmness Unknown
Relative Player Driving Distance

Coefficient Estimate274
0.00427
0.432
-4.49
-9.80
-4.09
0.963
Page 3 of 19

Std. Error
0.319~00.00580
0.07590.09060.173
0.00524t-Statistic
859
73.2
74.4
-59.2
-108
-23.6
184

p-Value<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001

Relative Player Accuracy
-12.4
0.651
-19.1
Daily Temperature
0.150
0.00372
40.4
Recovery Shot Frequency
0.161
0.0841
1.91
3-6%
Recovery Shot Frequency
-1.94
0.150
-13.0
>6%
Penalty Shot Frequency-2.49
0.0859-29.0
1-2.5%
Penalty Shot Frequency
-4.47
0.103
-43.5
>2.5%
Rough Penalty (Delta Shots
-4.74
0.505
-9.39
Gained)Wind
0.760
0.00482
158
Elevation Difference Tee to
0.225
0.00190
118
Fairway
Short Hole (less than 450 yds)
-0.4360.00155-282*All variables are significant at the 1% level except Recovery Shot Frequency 3-6%

<0.001<0.001
0.056<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001

Table 2: AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

3.3 An Important Consideration Prior to Application of the Results
The practicality, cost and impact on golfers can vary substantially across these factors and fromcourse to course and even hole to hole. As a result, a full assessment of the possible range of
implementation and maintenance costs for each course and/or event is beyond the scope of thisdocument. Any changes to golf course setup, conditions or design should be planned with input
from golf professionals, golf course superintendents, golf course construction professionals, golfcourse architects, or golf facility decision makers as appropriate.

3.4 Overall Summary of Golf Course Effects on Hitting Distance Factors
Figure 1 summarizes the golf course effects on hitting distance factors using a 2 x 2 matrix withthe length of each bar indicating estimates of the range of potential cost and the color indicating
the likely impact on experience of an average golfer. The vertical axis breaks the factors into thechallenge of achieving a 10-yard distance impact for elite golfers while the horizontal axis
separates the factors based on their feasibility and applicability. The 2021 Golf Course Builders
Association of America Cost Guide Version 7 was used to estimate cost ranges (4).

Page 4 of 19

Figure 1: SUMMARY OF GOLF COURSE EFFECTS ON DISTANCE: EFFECTIVENESS, FEASIBILITY, COSTRANGE, & ESTIMATED IMPACT ON AVERAGE GOLFER EXPERIENCE

3.5 Assumptions and Basis for Research
Where field testing or simulations were performed, variables were selected based on being
representative of golfers of different skill levels or courses of varying agronomic conditions.
Each detailed report in the Bibliography outlines the relevant assumptions and variables studied
for the research performed.

4 Detailed Golf Course Distance Effects
Several golf course factors were investigated based on their having a reasonable likelihood to
impact tee shot hitting distance either directly or indirectly. For example, fairway firmness
directly changes the bounce-and-roll of tee shots. Other factors strongly influence tee shot clubselection (5,6) (fairway width and hole length for example) and so the effect on hitting distanceis indirect. An analysis of U.S. Women’s Open data showed significantly less impact of course
design factors on tee shot hitting distances for elite female golfers (7).

Page 5 of 19

4.1 Data Sources
The current research drew on data from several sources to develop estimates of the potential
distance impact offered by these golf course factors. Shot data from elite competitions –including PGA TOUR events and USGA championships – provided a significant portion of thedata used in this study. The shot data from elite competitions were drawn from many players
over the course of many events, which provides a statistically significant assessment of how golfcourse factors influence tee shot distance at the highest level of the game. We also used datafrom various field tests conducted as part of Distance Insights for recreational golfers. Our fieldstudies provided additional context and allowed us to test specific adjustments, but the broad
application of field test data is inevitably limited by the extreme variability found in the golfcourse environment. It is impossible to perform field studies that are extensive enough toaccount for all the different circumstances that influence these factors on golf courses.

4.2 Setup-related Distance Factors
4.2.1 Overall Context
This section focuses on setup factors. Setup factors can generally be changed on a day-to-day
basis. These factors do not involve permanent changes to a golf course and their impact can be
confined to specific events if desired.

4.2.2 Modifying Hole Length (within the available tees)
4.2.2.1 Distance Impact Per Hole
Hole lengths varied from 360 yards to 610 yards for these data. Included in the data set were avariety of par four and par five tee shot drive distances that were modeled using a General
Linear Model to determine the influence of each factor.
Figure 2 plots the relationship between average drive distance and hole length. It shows that
holes above 450 yards have no statistically significant effect on drive distance but that shorter
than 450 yards, driving distance decreases. Above 450 yards, the impact of hole length
modifications on driving distance is not statistically significant because players are primarily
selecting driver and making full swings (5,6).

Page 6 of 19

Figure 2: DRIVING DISTANCE AS A FUNCTION OF HOLE LENGTH. THE LOWER BAR CHART SHOWS THE
FREQUENCY OF DRIVE DISTANCES WITHIN THAT HOLE LENGTH.

As shown in Table 2 for Short Holes (bottom row), those holes less than 450 yards, there is 0.44
yards of decreased tee shot distance for every yard that hole length is reduced below 450 yards
in elite male competitions. Figure 3 shows that this is primarily due to reduced use of driver byelite male players (5).

Page 7 of 19

Figure 3: DRIVER USAGE BY HOLE YARDAGE ON THE PGA TOUR

4.2.2.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Decreasing hole length from the back tee can be achieved by playing from more forward tees.
When viewed as a setup modification, shifting tees forward would only involve using existingteeing areas. Shifting back tees forward is feasible and applicable at most golf courses,
especially for short-term purposes. Keep in mind that moving tee locations can have safety
implications for players on that hole or on adjacent holes. It is important to note that decreasing
average tee shot distance by reducing hole length does not make a course play longer; it only
works because it discourages driver use and therefore changes the nature of the game.

4.2.3 Shortening Distance from Back Tee to Dogleg Turn Point
4.2.3.1 Distance Impact Per Hole
Distance from the tee to the dogleg turn point was another one of several golf course hitting
distance factors that were studied during a statistical analysis project by Broadie (8) using thesame data as described in Section 3.2. Doglegs can be used to effectively reduce tee shot
distances. Analysis showed that where the physical layout and features of a hole created aneffective dogleg with at least 35 degrees turn, reducing the distance to the turn point reduced
tee shot hitting distances at a rate of 0.7 yards per yard of turn point distance reduction. This isdifferent to changes in hole length because of the proximity of the dogleg.
Page 8 of 19

Tee shot finishing locations are shown in Figure 4 for play during a competitive round on The
TPC River Highlands 9th hole during the 2022 Travelers Championship. It clearly shows that tee
shots on average finish past the turn point but are heavily influenced by sharp doglegs (see thehigh density of ball locations at the turn point).

Figure 4: Shotlink data from the 9th hole at TPC River Highlands during the 2022 Travelers Championship illustrates
the impact that a sharp dogleg can have on driving distance in certain circumstances. The angle of this dogleg is 56
degrees and the average driving distance on this hole during the tournament was 271 yards, which is well below the
PGA Tour average of 295-300 yards.

4.2.3.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Achieving distance impacts by shifting tees forward on a dogleg hole depends on the number ofavailable sharp doglegs. Also, the distance impacts are dependent on the features andlandscape inside the corner of the dogleg. On a tree-lined hole, the distance decrease can besignificant if players can’t clear the trees – in a grassland setting players may simply cut the
Page 9 of 19

corner if the back tee is shifted forward. The average dogleg angle in the study was 20 degrees,so 35 degrees or greater represents a sharper-than-average amount of turn.
Although not specifically studied and quantified, the distance to the dogleg turn point forrecreational golfers that would change their behavior will be relative to their hitting distance anddifferent than elite male golfers.
Creating new dogleg holes is not a course setup change but a more costly and disruptive designchange that is not discussed in this report and which could have player safety implications.

4.2.4 Penalty Areas Near the Landing Zone (staked penalty areas)
4.2.4.1 Distance Impact Per Hole
Driving distance changes from placing a penalty area near the landing zone was another ofseveral golf course hitting distance factors that were studied by Broadie (8) as described in
Section 3.2.
As shown in Table 3, an abbreviated version of Table 2, the study found 4.5 yards of decreased
tee shot distance when a penalty area is located near the landing zone in a way that creates a
relatively high risk (i.e., >2.5% of tee shots) of incurring a penalty. When the likelihood of
incurring a penalty is reduced, the effect on average driving distance decreases and eventually
has no effect on average driving distance.

Parameter
Coefficient Estimate
Penalty Shot Frequency
-4.47
>2.5%
*All variables are significant at the 1% level

Std. Error
0.103

t-Statistic-43.5

p-Value<0.001

Table 3: AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR HIGH FREQUENCY PENALTY SHOTS

4.2.4.2 Feasibility and Applicability
When appropriate, marking penalty areas near the landing area using red, yellow or white
stakes is a common practice.

4.3 Conditioning-related Distance Factors
4.3.1 Overall Context
This section focuses on course condition factors. Course condition factors typically require more
effort to adjust than setup factors and require longer periods of time to change. These factors
can be adjusted on a temporary or permanent basis and their effectiveness and resource
impacts will vary considerably based on existing site conditions.

Page 10 of 19

4.3.2 Fairway Firmness
4.3.2.1 Distance Impact Per Hole
Driving distance change due to changes in fairway firmness was another of several golf course
hitting distance factors that were studied during a statistical analysis project by Broadie (8) using
the same data as described in Section 3.2. The statistical model coefficients and statisticalsignificance are shown in Table 4 with the relevant parameters. Compared with firm fairways,
medium firmness fairways reduced tee shot distance by 4.5 yards and soft fairways by 9.8
yards.

Parameter
Coefficient Estimate
Fairway Firmness Medium-4.49
Fairway Firmness Soft
-9.80
1
Fairway Firmness Unknown-4.09*All variables are significant at the 1% level

Std. Error
0.07590.09060.173

t-Statistic
-59.2
-108
-23.6

p-Value<0.001<0.001<0.001

Table 4: AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR FAIRWAY FIRMENSS

Separately in June 2018, the USGA initiated field testing to determine how bounce-and-roll
distance was impacted by grass species, mowing height, mowing direction, soil moisture andorganic matter content (9). A total of 624 bounce-and-roll distance measurements wererecorded using a portable golf ball launcher calibrated to simulate inbound drives from various
launch angles. Moisture levels of the soils at each test event ranged from 29 to 42 percent, withmost readings at a moisture level of 36 percent. Note that the typical PGA TOUR drive has an
inbound angle of 38-39 degrees and lower angles are expected for shorter hitting recreational
golfers.
These studies found 2-15 yards of distance reduction was observed when compared to baseline
conditions by increasing fairway moisture content 5-8% with a reasonable irrigation cycle of0.15-0.20 inch. The average reduction was between 5-10 yards. Note that as shown in Figure 5,
the results are non-linear and there are interactions between angle of impact and moisture
content.

1 Fairway firmness listed as “Unknown” in Shotlink data. Based on the Coefficient Estimate, this may not

be practically distinguishable from “Medium”, implying that it is similar to Medium on average.

Page 11 of 19

Figure 5: INTERACTION BETWEEN ANGLE AND MOISTURE LEVEL

4.3.2.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Maintaining fairway moisture levels to reduce bounce-and-roll for short periods of time that aresuitable for healthy turf is feasible for golf courses with fairway irrigation coverage and an
adequate water supply. It is not recommended to increase fairway moisture levels beyond waterrequirements for healthy turf. However, facilities should be aware that drying down their fairways
will lead to increased hitting distance and may cause turf stress. For courses in areas wherewater is expensive or where water use is restricted, or where there are environmental concerns,
challenges may be faced with managing fairway moisture levels for the purpose of reducing
bounce-and-roll distances.
In many parts of the world, water availability and cost are critical factors in sustainability of golfcourses. The industry has been committed to actively reduce water consumption for maintaining
golf course turf (12). Using irrigation to soften fairways runs counter to these needs and trends.

4.3.3 Mowing Height
4.3.3.1 Distance Impact Per HoleThe June 2018 USGA bounce-and-roll project investigated the distance impact of mowing
height (9). This study found that over a tested range of 0.35-0.60 inches height of cut (HOC),
the difference in bounce-and-roll was 2-4 yards, equating to 1-2 yards per 0.1-inch change. No
difference was observed below 0.40 inch. Testing was not conducted above a 0.6-inch HOC
because of lack of availability. The maximum achievable tee shot distance impact is likely in therange of 2-4 yards per hole given the typical mowing heights for the most commonly used
fairway grasses.

Page 12 of 19

4.3.3.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Raising fairway HOC can be done reasonably and at minimal cost on most golf courses. The
amount of increase possible depends on current mowing height, grass type and golfer
expectations. For temporary changes, it is not recommended to increase fairway height morethan 30% because of potential scalping and turf issues when returning to the original HOC.
Grasses like bentgrass and bermudagrass may not play well at heights above 0.5-0.6 inch,
while other grasses may perform acceptably at 0.75 inch.

4.3.4 Grain Direction
4.3.4.1 Distance Impact Per HoleAs another part of the June 2018 USGA bounce-and-roll project, the distance impact of mowing
direction to form grain was investigated (9). Distance impact of grain direction was highly
dependent on grass type: of three types tested, bentgrass and Poa annua fairways showed 0-3
yards difference based on direction of cut. A high-cut Zoysiagrass fairway for which the grain
was intensified by mowing in the same direction over multiple months had a statisticallysignificant difference of 11 yards of distance between shots landing with the grain versus into
the grain, although it should be noted that this specific difference represents the extremes ofgrain direction mowing and in specific circumstances.
4.3.4.2 Feasibility and Applicability
The ability to encourage fairway grain into the direction of play varies by grass type. Somegrasses will not typically produce impactful grain even with repeated mowing in one direction.
Encouraging grain in the direction of play also requires mowing fairways toward the tee over an
extended period of time. This has undesirable equipment and labor cost increases. Attempting
to encourage grain also diminishes mowing quality, which may lead to scalping, thin turf anddisease impacts. It is not recommended to promote grain because of the negative impacts on
turf health and the cost.

4.3.5 Fairway Width
4.3.5.1 Distance Impact Per HoleFairway width and rough penalty (next Section 4.3.6) are complex variables that interact witheach other and with hole length. As described in Section 4.2.2 for holes longer than 450 yards,
elite male golfers generally hit driver to maximize tee shot distance in an attempt to minimize
their expected score. As shown in Figure 6, driving distance is not affected by fairway width forlong holes (orange curve), except possibly at the widest of fairways (above 65 yards).

Page 13 of 19

Figure 6: 2020-21 DATA: SEGREGATE LONG HOLES FOR AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE VERSUS FAIRWAYWIDTH

For shorter holes, a non-linear relationship between fairway width and hitting distance ishypothesized: as holes get very wide or very narrow, there may be a lower premium on
accuracy.
Driving distance change due to changes in fairway width was another of several golf course
hitting distance factors that were studied during a statistical analysis project by Broadie (8) using
the same data as described in Section 3.2. It is also significant that fairways narrower than 20
yards occur on average on shorter holes (less than 425 yards) which represent only about 6-7%
of holes studied (10). Overall, this study found that 0.43 yards of distance decrease wasobserved per yard of decreased fairway width for players in elite male competitions as shown in
Table 5.

Parameter
Coefficient Estimate
Fairway Width at 300 yds
0.432*All variables are significant at the 1% level

Std. Error
0.00580

t-Statistic
74.4

p-Value<0.001

Table 5: AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR FAIRWAY WIDTHIt should also be noted that frequently fairways narrow in the landing zone due to obstacles on
the golf course such as bunkers or penalty areas (see 4.2.4 and 4.4.4). Therefore, not only is
the golfer modifying their tee shot decision for fairway width, but they may also be avoiding
obstacles. Figure 7 shows a reanalysis of the PGA TOUR data only looking at driving distance
Page 14 of 19

as a function of fairway width and considering hole length (10). This different analysis found that
0.72 yards of distance decrease was observed per yard of decreased fairway width for players
in elite male competitions on holes shorter than 450 yards. It confirms the relative insensitivity of
average driving distance to fairway width for long holes.

Figure 7: 2020-21 PGA TOUR DATA: AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE VERSUS FAIRWAY WIDTHCORRELATIONS BY HOLE LENGTH

Although not specifically studied and quantified, the hole length for recreational golfers thatwould change their behavior will be relative to their hitting distance and different than elite
golfers - typically much less than 450 yards for most golfers.
4.3.5.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Narrowing fairways is something that could be considered at most courses. Cost and practicality
depend on existing grass types in the fairways and rough, along with the irrigation layout andlocation of obstacles. Narrowing fairways can involve significant expense depending on thegrass types, irrigation layout, and timeframe for modifications. Narrowing fairways also has thepotential to reduce golfer satisfaction if the changes are permanent and accompanied by overly
challenging rough.

Page 15 of 19

4.3.6 Rough Penalty
4.3.6.1 Distance Impact Per HoleThe impact on driving distance from increased rough penalty was another of several golf course
hitting distance factors that were studied during a statistical analysis project by Broadie (8) using
the same data as described in Section 3.2. Here, Rough Penalty is defined by the change instrokes gained between a fairway lie and a rough lie at the same approach distance. The
statistical model coefficients and statistical significance for the penalty of rough are shown in
Table 6.

Parameter
Coefficient Estimate
Rough vs. Fairway-4.74*All variables are significant at the 1%

Std. Error
0.505

t-Statistic-9.39

p-Value<0.001

Table 6: AVERAGE DRIVING DISTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR ROUGH PENALTY

Values of Rough Penalty in the period studied for elite male competitions (8) varied from in -0.1
to -0.5. For the greatest Rough Penalty, tee shots were as much as 2 yards shorter than thosefor the least Rough Penalty. Fairway width and hole length are related factors for this distance
impact. Wider fairways may generally lead to less concern about the penalty from difficult rough,and longer holes will lead to increased use of driver regardless of the penalty.
Rough height as an independent factor was studied in a separate analysis of elite malecompetitions (5) and found not to be a quantitatively significant effect on drive distance. The
effect was less than 1 yard per inch of rough height.
4.3.6.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Increasing rough penalty is feasible at all golf courses through agronomic changes.

4.4 Design-related distance factors
4.4.1 Overall Context
This section focuses on design factors. Design factors can generally be changed during theinitial construction of the course or during a renovation and generally at higher cost than setup
or conditioning adjustments. Design changes are typically longer-lasting adjustments, whichmeans their impact on long-term maintenance costs and the golfer experience of a wide rangeof players should be carefully considered.

4.4.2 Modifying Landing Zone Pitch
4.4.2.1 Distance Impact Per HoleA detailed bounce and roll study was completed in support of Distance Insights (9). 0.98-2.45
yards of decreased tee shot distance was observed for every degree that landing zone pitch istilted into the tee shot. When fairway landing zone pitch exceeds approximately 6 degrees
uphill, there is a strong possibility that the ball may not come to rest and is likely to roll

Page 16 of 19

backward. The upper limit on playable fairway grades will influence how much distancemodification is possible on a particular hole.
4.4.2.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Modifying the grade of a landing zone to decrease bounce-and-roll after impact generally
requires a large area of disturbance and significant costs for a modest decrease in distance,
which likely makes this change infeasible for most courses. However, paying attention to therelationship between back tee hitting distances and landing zone pitch during new construction
or renovation could present opportunities to make a course play longer without incurring
significant additional costs.

4.4.3 Modifying Tee to Landing Zone Elevation Change:
4.4.3.1 Distance Impact Per Hole
Trajectory simulations were used to determine the effect of elevation change between the tee
area and the landing zone of drives (11) and were confirmed by Broadie (8). It was found that
there was 0.2 yards of decreased tee shot distance for every 1 foot of landing zone elevation
increase or tee height decrease. Distance impacts through cut-and-fill modifications in thelanding zone or back tee area will be limited because of the earthmoving required. This factor is
likely to be most impactful during course routing, large-scale renovations, and during setup for
events where there is a desire for the course to play longer.
4.4.3.2 Feasibility and Applicability
The earthmoving required to achieve meaningful distance impacts is impractical in most cases.
Significant elevation changes on the property are required to achieve distance impacts throughcourse layout or setup relating to tee shot elevation changes. Properties with limited elevation
change will not be able to impact hitting distance in a significant way through tee to landing zone
elevation relationships.

4.4.4 Placing Penalty Areas Near the Landing Zone (Physical Obstacles)
4.4.4.1 Distance Impact Per HoleAs described in section 4.2.4, driving distance change from placing a penalty area near thelanding zone was another of several golf course hitting distance factors that were studied during
a statistical analysis project by Broadie (8) using the same data as described in Section 3.2. The
statistical model coefficients and statistical significance are shown in Table 3. The study found
4.5 yards of decreased tee shot distance when a penalty hazard is located near the landingzone in a way that creates a relatively high risk (>2.5%) of incurring a penalty.
Distance effects can be increased by creating cross-hazards, which essentially limit distance towhatever degree desired. When the risk of incurring a penalty decreases, the effect on average
driving distance decreases and eventually has no effect on average driving distance.
4.4.4.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Placing physical obstacles that are penalty areas – e.g., a pond – as a design feature near thelanding area during the initial design or during renovation is a common practice. However, thefeasibility drops substantially after initial design and between major renovations. The golfer
experience impact of penalty areas must be carefully considered because even those located in
the landing zone for longer hitters must eventually be avoided by all golfers playing the hole.
Page 17 of 19

4.4.5 Modifying Hole Length (adding tees)
4.4.5.1 Distance Impact Per Hole
Modifying hole length within the available tees was described in the Setup Effects section (4.2).
Another way to modify hole length is to add new tees to a hole which will affect hitting distanceconsistent with setup changes.
4.4.5.2 Feasibility and Applicability
Adding back tee yardage typically requires building a new teeing area, which can involve
varying degrees of intervention depending on the existing site conditions. Adding a back tee into
an existing turf area with irrigation coverage can be a relatively small-scale project, while adding
a back tee into a forested area with steep slopes would require a much larger scope of work andhigher costs. Moving tee locations forward or back can have safety implications for players onthat hole or on adjacent holes. Also, not all golf courses have space available or means to add
back tees and this type of modification has impacts on golf course footprint and long-term
resource consumption.

5 Conclusions
This document and supporting materials include research conducted regarding golf course
effects on hitting distance as recommended in the February 4, 2020, Distance Insights
Statement of Conclusions (1). While the setup, course condition and design factor interactions
with hitting distance are complex, interrelated and highly variable dependent on specific golfcourse site conditions, quantitative ranges have been estimated for the most significant effects.
These factors have modest and varying degrees of impact on distance and a wide range ofpotential cost and golfer experience effects. Therefore, they should not be viewed as a means
to substantially reduce the long-term impact related to distance across the game. These
potential practices will continue to be reviewed as part of the ongoing conversation with theindustry on hitting distance.

6 References
1. R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Distance Insights Statement ofConclusions. St Andrews, Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf
Association, 2020.
2. R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Distance Insights Report. St Andrews,
Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association, 2020.
3. R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Distance Insights Report Library. St
Andrews, Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association, 2020.
4. Golf Course Builders Association of America. Golf Course Builders Association ofAmerica Cost Guide: Version 7. Lincoln, NE: Golf Course Builders Association of America,
2021.
5. R&A Rules, Ltd. Impact on Driving Distance of Fairway Width and Height, and RoughHeight. St Andrews: R&A Rules, Ltd., 2022.
6. United States Golf Association. Club Decision Making Model. Liberty Corner, NJ: UnitedStates Golf Association, 2020.
Page 18 of 19

7. United States Golf Association. U.S. Women’s Open Drive Distance Analysis. Liberty
Corner, NJ: United States Golf Association, 2021
8. Broadie, M. Factors Affecting Scoring and Driving Distance. New York, NY, 2021.
9. R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Agronomic Impacts on Bounce and Roll
Distance. St Andrews, Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association,
2020.
10. R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Fairway Width – ES/GS Research. St
Andrews, Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association, 2022.
11. R&A Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association. Simulations on the Effect of Tee toLanding Zone Elevation Differences on Distance. St Andrews, Liberty Corner, NJ: R&A
Rules, Ltd., United States Golf Association, 2022.
12. R&A, Golf Course 2030, St Andrews, 2021; R&A, Using Water Efficiently, St Andrews,
2022; GEO Foundation for Sustainable Golf, Five Significant Ways Golf Clubs can Save
Water and Cut Costs, North Berwick, 2022.

Page 19 of 19