News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


NAF

Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« on: August 15, 2005, 07:25:35 AM »
Geoff is quoted a fair bit in this..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/sports/golf/15roberts.html

Sports of The Times
It Is High, It Is Far, It Is...in the Rough

             Printer-Friendly
Reprints
By SELENA ROBERTS
Published: August 15, 2005
Springfield, N.J.

UNCOILING his wispy frame, whipping his 10-gallon driver through the ball, Davis Love III launched one tee shot into the treetops, scattering the birds, squirrels and Swiss Family Robinson.

 
A Suspended Final Round

Just another errant drive. Par for the course at Baltusrol. By the time play was suspended last night at the P.G.A. Championship, Love remained on a leader board cluttered with bad drivers on the scale of Mr. Magoo.

Almost no one saw a fairway. Almost all of them bumped into the rough, trees and fan ropes.

For all of their inaccurate ways, Love was tied for fourth place, while Phil Mickelson was in first. Joining them on the leader board were Vijay Singh and Tiger Woods.

Of these superstars of swing, not one of them was among the top 40 in fairways hit during the major. Mickelson was closest at 44th, followed by Love (51st), Singh (52nd) and Woods (63rd).

This is why the most memorable shots of the tournament have been recovery shots from the abyss. There was Mickelson, ankle deep in the rough, using a short iron like a banana blade as he blasted a ball onto the 14th green.

Somehow golf has gotten to the point where inaccuracy isn't punitive because distance is so highly rewarded. A 330-yard drive into the rough, plus a wedge to the green, is far more attractive to a player than a 280-yard poke and a 5-iron to the pin.

But is might always right? There is an aberration on the leader board in Steve Elkington, who was in a tie with Thomas Bjorn for second place when the storms blew across Baltusrol last night.

Elkington is the amiable Aussie with a caddie nicknamed Gypsy and a driving distance that ranks him 132nd on the PGA Tour. But his fairway accuracy is No. 14 at Baltusrol. He is not an equipment aficionado like Mickelson and Love or an all-consumed workout fiend like Woods and Singh.

"I couldn't be like Vijay," Elkington told Australian reporters last week. "I admire what he does, but I bet he doesn't even know where the light switches are at home."

In other words, Elkington has a life. But he occupied the space among the leaders as an anomaly. More and more, players like Woods, Mickelson, Singh and Love overpower their errors to find success.

"I don't blame them," said Geoff Shackelford, author of "The Future of Golf: How Golf Lost Its Way and How to Get It Back," when reached by telephone yesterday. "Over the course of four rounds, it's a wise thing to do. Power is more important."

It has become an obsession. It's all about the equipment and computer analysis, the balls and the Launch Monitor, which, in essence, is a time-lapse X-ray of a swing to determine factors like ball spin and carry distance in order to match a player to the optimum club.

"Players have picked up 30 or 40 yards on their drives using it," Shackelford said.

What else are players using? Power cravings in any sport can lead to boundary pushing of the chemical kind. There is no whisper of a steroid problem inside the P.G.A., but there is also no drug testing. So how does anyone truly know surges in distance are all about technology and not about the designer steroid THG?

The long ball's allure creates a slippery slope. Baseball heard the siren song of power and sold its soul for magic pills. Hitters bulked up to keep up. Pitchers juiced up to spike their endurance. The game was rewarded with money and fame until Balco revealed the secret behind the long-ball success.

The fallout from Balco also revealed how the power obsession was just a mirage. In truth, fans longed for a return to nuance, to the beauty of a stolen base, to the grace of a diving catch, to the roots of the game. Fans, as it turns out, truly loved the game without the homer hype.

Golf may discover the same thing. One day, ball shaping and shot-making and strategy may once again come into vogue. But for now, course designers will continue to lengthen and tighten the fairways of the majors in an effort to outdistance the long ball on some of the most prestigious courses. In 1993, Baltusrol added 10 yards to the width of its fairways.

"It's a dramatic shift in the way the game is played," Shackelford said. "To anyone who loves the great old golf courses, it's offensive. There used to be an element of strategy, of placement. That is gone now and that is tragic."

It's unfortunate for the Fred Funks and Mike Weirs of the game, for those who believe accuracy should be rewarded. As it is, power, however errant, is not a hazard.

"Players are not afraid of missing," Shackelford said. "They're just hitting it as far as they can without worrying about whether they're going to land in the fairway. It's absurd."

It's the way of the game, unless someone, maybe Elkington, can place a little finesse into the bag of a winner of a major.


Paul_Turner

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2005, 09:35:37 AM »
I don't see 30-40 yards gain from launch and spin optimisation.  The stats don't show it either.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Tiger_Bernhardt

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2005, 10:04:35 AM »
Go Geoff, The voice of reason needs to be heard.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 12:16:01 PM by Tiger_Bernhardt »

Jeff_Brauer

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2005, 10:04:45 AM »
Are golfers getting better, and too good for golf courses?  You you wouldn't know it by the scores, even as distance increases.

With all due respect to Geoff, I agree it may be offensive to those who love old courses as they were.  I can't agree with the second part of that sentence, however.  The fact that golf is changing isn't at all "tragic" compared to plane crashes, poverty, etc.  

It may not even be absurd, but rather, just human nature to move forward, and not look back.....except of course, for a small band of gca devotees! :o

Related question - is playing with proper trajectory and spin rate any more or less strategic, or any more or less challenging than playing for a frontal opening?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Benham

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2005, 10:38:46 AM »
I don't see 30-40 yards gain from launch and spin optimisation.  The stats don't show it either.

Screw the stats, was Tiger and DLIII FLYING the ball 330 yards?

"... and I liked the guy ..."

A_Clay_Man

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #5 on: August 15, 2005, 10:49:19 AM »
With record crowds, how is it going the way of tennis?

Paul_Turner

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #6 on: August 15, 2005, 10:52:13 AM »
I don't see 30-40 yards gain from launch and spin optimisation.  The stats don't show it either.

Screw the stats, was Tiger and DLIII FLYING the ball 330 yards?



If it's a true gain (of that magnitude) it'll show up in the stats.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 10:53:01 AM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Mike Benham

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #7 on: August 15, 2005, 11:07:02 AM »
If it's a true gain (of that magnitude) it'll show up in the stats.

From the PGA Website: 87th PGA Stats Package through 3 rounds

Driving Distances:

1.  Daly - 337.0 yards with a long of 365.
2.  Woods - 325.0 yards with a long 355.
3.  Parnevik - 324.5 yards with a long 343.
79. (last)  Mickelson - 269.2 yards with a long of 300 and includes a 157 yard drive that clipped a tree.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 11:07:31 AM by Mike Benham »
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Paul_Turner

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2005, 11:10:53 AM »
The stats for the whole season show that driving distance has been static for the past 3 seasons.  The more data you include, the smaller the error.  The Mickelson data clearly shows this!  
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 11:11:24 AM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

MikeJones

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2005, 11:55:22 AM »
Sorry Paul but stats don't tell the whole story.

Anyone who develops a swing speed in excess of 115 mph with a driver and has the right equipment and ball has added a huge amount of distance through their bag.

Just a few years ago (1999) the 300 yard carry was the realm of long drive specialists. I remember seeing the former long drive champions in action stating quite clearly that there were less than 10 people in the world who could carry a ball 300+ yards at sea level. I don't even play competitively any more and I can even do that now on a good swing. I wouldn't say that 40 yards is overstating things at all.

Just because you have a car capable of doing 180 miles an hour doesn't mean to say that you will always drive flat out. However there is no getting away from the fact that the power is there as and when you need it.



Mike Benham

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2005, 12:07:58 PM »
The stats for the whole season show that driving distance has been static for the past 3 seasons.  The more data you include, the smaller the error.  The Mickelson data clearly shows this!  

It has been mentioned many times that first 5 months of this golf season was plagued by rain and softened conditions.  I'll let you conclude that statistics are telling the truth.
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Tiger_Bernhardt

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2005, 12:21:29 PM »
It is how they play the game. No the scores are not that much better but how they make the score is changing. The baseball analogy is a good one as well. I really do feel the game is changing for the worse in a big way. Go Geoffrey again, keep fighting the good fight. Eventually things will go far enough people will stop enough is enough. I want the game of golf back. It is a hard game and much of the improvments make more and more people able to shoot in the mid to high 80's and 90's, thereby making golf enjoyable to them. However the Tour and the USGAis are out of the box and not doing the game or their members any good.

Brian_Gracely

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #12 on: August 15, 2005, 12:43:46 PM »
To lump the ineffectiveness of Major League Baseball to police the steroid issue into the same category as golf architecture and technological advances in golf is bogus and feeding off the sensationalism.  

The real people with their heads in the sand are golfers that still believe that there should be a unified set of I&B rules for ALL golfers....just because they can play a Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines, or because the average PGA golfer looks similar to their dentist or neighbor.  Note to those ostriches....PGA TOUR professionals do this for a living, as does their equipment fitters, teachers, strength coaches, etc..  

Baseball has it right....bifurcation between amateur and professional levels.  

And for those or you that cling to this glorified belief that it would screw up the 3-4 amateurs that play in the US Open, get real.  (a) An amateur (playing the same equipment) hasn't won the US Open in over 70yrs., (b) If the rules in the US Open are different, then the amateur should learn to adjust....they have to adjust to the US Open setup anyways.

The real stat is that scoring for amateurs is not getting any better.  So let them continue to be foolish and buy the latest $500 driver.  Let them vote with their wallets if they want to play a $200/round CCFAD or a course that is shorter, less-green or less-maintained.  The only real question is should a club subject their course to the remodeling that is necessary to host a professional tournament.  Maybe they should and maybe they shouldn't...and maybe that is fixed with a PROFESSIONAL BALL...but don't lump this sappy fondness for old-time golf into what the real issues are.  
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 12:52:06 PM by Sandbox_Gracely »

Geoff_Shackelford

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #13 on: August 15, 2005, 02:01:01 PM »
Most of my quotes used here were related to the narrowing of courses and the impact that the loss of width has had by stripping the courses of some of their strategy and by encouraging flogging. I pointed out that over four days, I believe the flogging approach is less stressful and statistically has shown itself to be a way to make more birdies. Steve Elling of the Orlando Sentinel has likened it to hockey's dump and chase, and though that kind of golf was less prominent at Baltusrol, it's the way of the future because of course setups and the ability of players to carry the ball incredible distances.

Also, I told her that launch monitors added 20-30 yards, not 30-40. The first number has been suggested by many people people who know much more than I, and since monitors began appearing in 2001-2002, there's been a significant distance increase since then. Particularly with carry for the elite golfer. Even Tiger couldn't carry it 350 in the air until he became optimized.

Brian_Gracely

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #14 on: August 15, 2005, 02:10:00 PM »
So golf would generally be OK if the fairways were widened 20-30 yards (as a generality), but the greens rolled at 8 and the fairways were cut 1/4-1/2" longer?


Lou_Duran

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2005, 03:05:01 PM »
Go get'm Sandbox!  I can live with wider faiways and 8' speeds (though I like 10' better on most courses).  So could all the big hitters on the tour.

Even with a toned-down "tour" ball, the strong would continue to have the advantage.  That's been the case historically and short of handicapping each player like they do jockeys and horses in some races, it will continue in the future.  

We do seem to live in different worlds.  I guess that science and "progress" are great except in golf.  Though not an ideal solution, bifurcation works for me.

Having played in two charity oriented outings this past week, there was little that I saw relative to technology that alarmed me.  The duffer continues to find overwhelming difficutly with the game, even while using the newest Taylor Made drivers, Callaway irons, and ProV1x balls.

Rather than destroying the game, perhaps the prospect of better play by acquisition is what may be keeping people in it.  Not many young, working people can beat balls and play several times a week to improve.  Even though many of us know that cutting corners is mostly futile, what's wrong if a guy spends $650 for an R7 TP and occasionally pokes one out there with the big boys?


Geoffrey Childs

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2005, 03:11:10 PM »
what's wrong if a guy spends $650 for an R7 TP and occasionally pokes one out there with the big boys?

What's wrong is that R7 TP is no good for the average Joe nor is the ProV1 X.  Those products are optimized for players with tour level swing speeds.  Its only those guys who get the most out of equipment.  Average Joe's can get improvements via launch monitors but not to the level the flat bellies can.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2005, 03:56:00 PM by Geoffrey Childs »

Geoff_Shackelford

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2005, 04:53:56 PM »
Sandbox

Who said anything about fairway heights and green speeds? Yes, width would be a nice thing for the sport.

Geoff

Brian_Gracely

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2005, 04:59:00 PM »
Geoff,

So you're advocating wide fairways and today's green and fairway heights?  And this is for ALL of golf, or just for the PGA tournaments?  

So in essense it would raise the cost for clubs to maintain all of that extra fairway, and the trade-off is a few more birdies during the PGA events?    

Mike Hendren

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2005, 05:32:15 PM »
I have no idea what in world you apologists live.

David,

I live and play golf in the real world.  Professional golf is NOT the real world.  If Jack and Weiskopf can both shoot 63 at Baltusrol twenty-five years ago, why on earth were we subjected to that hack-a-thon yesterday?  They should've put garbage truck back-up beepers on those boys!  

The sky DOES NOT FALL in the real world.  It merely makes for good reading.  

With apologies to Alan Jackson:

Here in the real world,
I can't reach fives in two
I can't drive it 340
Eldrick can, but can you?
Watching Pavin's so sad, it's true
Give all the shotmakers their due
I just wish I could shoot eighty-two
Here in the real world.


Be well.


Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Doug Siebert

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2005, 09:02:01 PM »
What does the Shotlink data show for driving distances?  The tour only measures two holes, Shotlink measures them all.  Surely Tiger hit further than 355 on that 17th hole.   Its 650 and he was like 260 to go on Saturday I think it was.  Yes, I know it was with the wind and there some roll, but it wasn't exactly a gale nor was the ground reminiscent of TOC.

The increase due to the new equipment and optimization is in EXCESS of 30-40 yards when you are talking carry distance.  In 1998, I remember an interview where Tiger said when he really nailed a driver, it carried 280 yards under normal conditions.  I think he was still playing his persimmon then, but steel wouldn't have helped him, maybe a longer shaft and graphite could have gotten him to 290.  Now he's carrying it 330, 340 yards.

The real reason the pros are busting away with driver is because the vast majority of their distance is in the form of carry, so ending up in the rough doesn't hurt them much at all anymore.  Even with the hard fairways, Davis Love's ball hardly rolled at all even on the downwind holes.  Kept him a bit short of Tiger but he certainly didn't have to worry about losing more than 2 yards when he drove into the rough.  10 years ago hitting into the rough mattered because a guy would lose 30-40 yards.  So you had a choice:  Hit driver and hit 9i if you hit it straight, or hit 5 or 6i from the rough if you hit it crooked (or more if you mishit it a bit also)  So it made sense to hit a 2i so you could be pretty sure your 5 or 6i was from the fairway.  Now its either PW from the fairway or PW from the rough, so that 2i and a longer approach (made worse if you screw up your 2i) is no longer an attractive option.

But the tour is too dependant on the "you da man" segment who wants to see drivers on every hole and thinks they'd lose some of them if they had things back to where the leaders might start playing irons off the tee on a tight course with thick rough.  I guess if money is all that matters maybe that's the right choice, which is why I think the tour is going to be even less likely to lead than the USGA or R&A.  One can only hope that the Masters does the right thing and starts the ball rolling, so to speak.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Craig Sweet

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2005, 09:16:26 PM »
Lots of emotion on tis issue and very little actual data being tossed out here. Yes, SHOTLINK will provide the real data necessary to evaluate the PRO'S....but what the USGA or the R&A does to the PRO'S should NOT in anyway be passed along to the recreational golfer.

And, as I have stated in other posts, under other subjects, I do not feel its the job of the USGA to protect classic golf courses from their own egotistical desire to host PGA and USGA events by regulating the equipment to death.

Doug Siebert

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2005, 09:37:33 PM »
Screw the classical courses.  I could live with it if Baltusrol, Merion and Olympic never hosted another tournament.  But just about every course everywhere is being turned into a pitch and putt for more than just the pros you seem to think are affected, and for the pros I'm not sure 8000 yards is enough any more to really give some variety to their club choices other than driver/wedge, driver/wedge, driver/wedge on all the par 4s.

Are you just blind to this or are you worried that you personally will hit it shorter once the ball is rolled back?  If your drives did go shorter, why would that be a bad thing?  If your course was a bit too long after that you could move up a set of tees.  If its done right and attacked by ball spin, the game would be played a lot like it used to be and you might not lose any noticeable distance at all if your swing speed is 100 mph or less -- though your drives might carry less and roll more, and we'd go back to requiring some skill to keep one's slices in check and have to actually hit the ball square to have it go straight into a strong wind.

But apparently some people are worried that anything that makes the game harder for the average guy will cause some people to leave the game.  Who cares?  Do we have to ruin the game to keep a few fair-weather golfers who are willing to quit the game at the first sign of difficulty?  I personally think it wouldn't hurt at all if a couple million such people quit the game, even though I don't believe it would really happen.  Yes, it would suck for the lower tier GCAs, struggling courses and those who own Callaway stock.  But at some point the "you da man" segment will get bored of golf and quit anyway once they realize that even with 300 yard drives they still shoot in the 90s because they are in the trees constantly and even when in the fairway can't learn to hit their wedge well enough to score and quit out of frustration.  Reducing the skill requirements on driving won't help "grow" the game or keep people in it.  Those who would quit because they keep slicing drives OB would quit because they chunk wedges or shank 7 irons or take three to get out of a bunker.  There are plenty of frustrations awaiting those players once they leave the teebox and even a magic driver that went 330 down the middle on every drive won't keep them in the game forever.  But it damn sure would ruin it for the rest of us!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

William King

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2005, 10:09:55 PM »
The stats for the whole season show that driving distance has been static for the past 3 seasons.  The more data you include, the smaller the error.  The Mickelson data clearly shows this!  

It has been mentioned many times that first 5 months of this golf season was plagued by rain and softened conditions.  I'll let you conclude that statistics are telling the truth.


Well, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics!  :P

Craig Sweet

Re:Geoff Shackelford quoted in NY Times
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2005, 10:15:40 PM »
Doug, I fail to see how we "ruin the game" by advancing the equipment?  The equipment is what keeps people playing the game. It is what makes the game enjoyable.  Hitting a 3 iron blade, or a persimmon head driver with lea,d tape all over it is NOT my idea of fun.  Hitting a rock hard Top Flight, or slicing thru a Tour Balata Titilest with the first miss hit is not fun.

You mentioned my drives and my course, so I thought about what I hit...like most courses we have a handful of 380 yard par 4's and a handful of 465+ yard par 4's...the par fives are 530yds. 585yds...520yds and 495yds....I've been playing golf since age 9...I'm 53 now, and I've never hit the ball this far. I can reach the longest par 4's with anything from a 5 iron to an 8 iron depending on the wind...I can reach the shortest par 5's with a 4 or 5 iron and the longest with a fairway wood...on a good day...is this a bad thing??? Will I not enjoy the game as much if the equipment is detuned and I have to hit fairway woods into ALL the par 5's or play them in three shots? YES!!! Heck, I could lay up now...but I don't. The risk/reward is there precisely because I am longer off the tee now...I like that. I would be very angry if someone decided the BEST way to protect old, atiquated, classic golf courses, was to roll back everyone's equipment.

Tags: