Interesting Statistic

[David_Elvins]

I could be wrong here but it looks to me like:

The US Open was won by the player ranked 1st in driving distance.

and

THe Masters was won by the player ranked last in driving distance.  

Is this just a bizzaro world thing where opposites apply for no reason or can anything about course set up and architecture be implied by these results?  

[Jim Nugent]

To complicate or interest your query even further:  the player who finished number one in driving distance at Oakmont -- George McNeill -- actually finished dead last in the standing.  Cabrera, though, was 2nd in driving distance.  

[Mark_F]

David,

Possibly it could mean that on a (reasonably) wide course, the best players, given constant temptation and indecision, will hang themselves attempting things they shouldn't, which opens the gate for everyone, but if you narrow down the fairways, everyone is brought to the same level, and the insurmountable advantage of length will prevail?

[Jim Johnson]

Congrats to Angel on his win today, and Tiger for another awesome performance. Pretty impressive stuff from these two big hitters.

And ya know, without these two guys in the field, it could have been "the Fasth and the Furyk".

 

JJ

[David_Elvins]

Another interesting stat.  The player with the most birdies finished T43.    Would tend to indicate a fairly unique set up.  

[RichMacafee]

A short hitter was very unlikely to win this Open due to the greens IMO. It would just be too hard to make enough birdies to offset the inevitable bogeys. You needed to be hitting approaches that had height and spin to make birdies - Cabrera's birdie on 15 was a good example of why he did very well.

The Masters set up should have advantaged the long hitter - but Zach Johnson's wedge play (and putting) for the week was so exceptional that he was able to overcome it.

I quite liked this quote from Cabrera afterwards:

Angel Cabrera: Yes, well, I definitely usually play very well in the U.S. Open. Most of the time I’m not making any putts, but this week it was like everybody was missing the putts. So that gave me an advantage.

[Jim Nugent]

A short hitter was very unlikely to win this Open due to the greens IMO. It would just be too hard to make enough birdies to offset the inevitable bogeys. You needed to be hitting approaches that had height and spin to make birdies - Cabrera's birdie on 15 was a good example of why he did very well.

The Masters set up should have advantaged the long hitter - but Zach Johnson's wedge play (and putting) for the week was so exceptional that he was able to overcome it.

The weather leveled the field at ANGC this year.  No one hit the ball very far.  The big advantage guys like Tiger normally have was mostly wiped out.  This helped open the door for Zach.

As for short hitters at the Open, they did real well this week.  Furyk almost won.  Toms came in 5th.  Kelly, Verplank and Dougherty tied for 7th.  All were in the bottom half of the field in driving distance.  In all, 5 of the top 7 finishers were short hitters.    

[Mark Chaplin]

For me long and tight still suits the real long hitters who tend to hit hit more long irons or fairway woods from the tee, these clubs are obviously more accurate but the long hitter doesn't suffer too much of a loss of distance whilst hitting more fairways.

[TEPaul]

David:

There's nothing bizarro about it. It just proves that both long and short drivers are capable of hitting a lot of fairways in a given week. That may be a concept too difficult for the ultra analysts on this site to contemplate but I'm really not sure why.

[Doug Siebert]

Jim,

What you say makes no sense.  Sure, Tiger, Phil, Vijay and the other long hitters hit it shorter at the Masters due to the cold weather.  But so did Zach, Fred Funk and other shorter hitters.  If Tiger is 10% longer than Fred Funk at 80 degrees, he's still going to be 10% longer than him at 50 degrees, even if both are hitting it shorter due to the cold.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

What you say makes no sense.  Sure, Tiger, Phil, Vijay and the other long hitters hit it shorter at the Masters due to the cold weather.  But so did Zach, Fred Funk and other shorter hitters.  If Tiger is 10% longer than Fred Funk at 80 degrees, he's still going to be 10% longer than him at 50 degrees, even if both are hitting it shorter due to the cold.

Doug, I think you're wrong for two reasons.

1.  At ANGC this year, the difference between long and short hitters got compressed.  The longest hitter, Mickelson, was just 17 yards over the average; on tour this year the leader is 30 yards over average.  And Mick was way ahead of everyone else: 2nd-longest was only 11 yards greater than average.  Tiger only averaged 5 yards more than average at the Masters this year.  A big advantage the long hitters normally have at ANGC was largely neutralized.  

2.  Everyone hitting shorter meant several architectural features came into play more, equalizing the field.  The water at 13 and 15 are two examples.  The fairway bunker at 8 is another.  Many players who would normally go for those greens, sometimes with ease, had to lay up.  This put them in the same boat with Zach and other shorter hitters.  Instead of putting for eagle, they had to pitch on and putt for birdie.  



 

[David_Elvins]

Jim,

THats some interesting stats about the Masters.

I wonder if the reverse applied at Oakmont with more long hitters on the leader board than the typical US Open.  Not many Opens have had as many half par holes as Oakmont had this year.  The 2nd, 8th, 12th and 17th all gave the long hitters the chance to reach the green.  

Perhaps it is half par holes that give long hitters the greatest advantage, not width or length.

[Dan Boerger]

Just goes to show you that there's a lot of ways to get it done in golf. Most of us here always knew that, we see it just about every time we play golf. But at Tom points out, many of us over analyzye it to death and, among our own banter, become convinced there's only one way to tame the beast.

[Mike_Young]

The most interesting stat to me considering that ANGC and Oakmont were set up so differently and considering driving distance, putting and number of birdies was that in both instances the player with the least strokes won the tournament....it definitely had something to do with architecture IMHO.
Mike