[Patrick_Mucci]

the ball striker ?  Especially when combined with the inherent elements ?

When examining PGA tour stats such as fairways in regulation and bunkers saves, it would seem that those categories take on increased values on British Open courses, where missing fairways seems to have far more dire consequences, as does hitting the ball into those bunkers.

Play on PGA Tour courses seems more like a putting contest.

The British Open seems to be just the opposite.

Which would you prefer to watch, the PGA Tour or the British Open ?

Does the architecture at British Open courses, which produces doubles, triples and worse introduce a unique fear factor amongst the best players in the world ?

Is the introduction of blind shots unsettling to the best players in the world.

Lastly, do Tom Watson's five wins support this premise ?

[Mike Policano]

Pat,

In today's Wall Street Journal, John Paul Newport has some interesting quotes regarding courses in the UK.  "American golf is not necessarily monotonous, but it usually doesn't require as much creativity or thought processes as links golf does," said Mark O'Meara..."

"When you play golf in America, the challenges tend to be defined.  I hit my seven iron from 155 yards to 165 yards, and in this country when I am that distance away from the hole, that's usually the club I use.  But on a links course there's no telling what club I'll need from that distance,"...

'In a practice round...he pitched into the wind with his seven iron from 96 yards.  Three holes later, with the wind behind him, he used the same club to find the green from 213 yards."

"It is a feel game, a judgment game over there, rather than something mechanical," he said.  "It's all about controlling the trajectories of your shots and playing the contours of the land."

I much prefer The (British) Open to the PGA tour for viewing and for playing.

Cheers

[Chris Kane]

I've just watched Greg Norman hit a 5-iron from 120 yards, almost a chip style swing.  Great to watch, moreso than what you see at the American majors or on the PGA Tour.

Yes, the architecture favours the ball striker.  I'd also point out that the wind plays a pivotal factor (as you can see right now). 

When I caddied for Mike Clayton at the Aussie Masters in 2002, he played a practice round with Tom Watson.  The 12th hole played straight into a strong wind - Mike and Matthew Ecob hit 7-irons which were held up and fell short.  Watson then hit a 7-iron which soared through the air as though the wind didn't exist, finishing pin high.  Mike asked him as we walked off the tee how he hit the ball through the wind like that..."I hit it solid".

That was a prime illustration of how Watson won five Opens.

[Bill_McBride]

Ball striking is absolutely critical.  You can't play those knock down, punch shots into the wind without being very solid, any kind of spin and the ball balloons and gets away.  Off the tee is the same thing.

US tour players survive poor ball striking days with their putters.  You can't do that on links courses if the wind is up.

I'd rather watch the Open Championship than any other televised golf.  Especially on the West Coast when it started this morning at 4 a.m.!

[RJ_Daley]

I just love watching the physicality of them hitting the shots.  Yes, it favors the ball striker, not the lawn dart shooter.  Just as I type this, Choi had to brace himself in a bunker and give it a good chop and bang out of a bunker, and Norman had to lash at a ball in the rough with the characteristic gobs and strands of long grass sticking to the club head as he finished.  It is a real sporting challenge as opposed to a sort of stand up archery target game, which I like much more.  And, there are shots to be made out there, despite many shots that will go awry.   The guy  that makes the most best shots with the most best creativity with the most physical meld to his striking, is still going to win.  

[Adam Clayman]

Not as much as American architecture.

[Adam Clayman]

If there's a stereotype, Typical BO courses favor the shot maker, which, has to be different then a ball striker, or Pat, would've used that phrase.

[Jim Nugent]

One way to answer Patrick's question is to see who has won the British Open.  Along with Watson, you have guys like Hamilton and Curtis.  Great ball strikers?  Maybe the week they won. But if so, they have not repeated that much since then. 

Was Seve a great ball striker?  Creative, for sure.  Fantastic short game.  But also a wild player who visited many parts of the course. 

Even excluding Tiger, U.S. players have won nearly all British Opens the past 13 years.  Why would U.S. players win so much, if the courses they play the rest of the year (on the PGA tour) are so boring and one-dimensional?   

Nicklaus' preferred game was through the air.  He was a great ball striker, but also more of a lawn dart shooter as RJ calls them.  I wonder if that is one reason he had so many second-place finishes there.   

I also wonder how much of the creativity depends on the wind.  Norman played that choke-down 5-iron "chip" shot from 125 because he was hitting into a gale storm.  Without the wind, do the courses really play that much differently than U.S. courses do for the pro's?  They sure take apart TOC, e.g., when the wind is calm. 

[Bill_McBride]

If there's a stereotype, Typical BO courses favor the shot maker, which, has to be different then a ball striker, or Pat, would've used that phrase.

The point I was trying to make is that only solid ball strikers can play the variety of shots required for success on windy links.  If the shots aren't struck very solidly, they don't work.

So I think you have to be both a creative shotmaker and a solid ball striker to be successful on those links courses.

Is that clearer?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Guys

There is no better way to describe UK Golf apart from going to Askernish on a windy day and playing or watching a round of golf. This is real raw links golf at its very best. It’s the sheer challenge of the game, Man with his little balls and clubs (no pun intended Ladies) against the elements even on a beautiful sunny day. However if you prefer the manicured, well watered,  fast greens with shot to shot transport, perhaps offering limited challenge and all on a wholly artificial landscape, then don’t play our golf.

I have for some time tried to encourage golfers to play not just the big well known courses in the UK but to also try the less known and in real terms the entertaining and fun courses. They will give you a different perspective on golf. They will put a smile on your face and remind you why you started playing golf in the first place, but please, please try Askernish, on a windy day say between June to September and then tell me you did not enjoy it. However a note of warning first – go with an open mind, no pre-fixed ideas – the name of the game is links golf – 18 holes golf – if you don’t enjoy it, you can buy me a bottle of the finest Old Single Malt available as a penance for not opening your mind before playing.  The best is the 19th you may not surface until well past noon the next day. Enjoy the experience I don’t believe you will regret it.

I also would draw your attention to my reply No 3 on Chris Kane’s post Re: “Early equipment and blind shots” in which I talked about the Professionals being pampered and not playing on the same standard of courses as us poor humans are forced to use. This might give you a better insight into my thoughts. 

Don’t forget it’s only my opinion, but if it is real links golf that you seek as it was played in the late 1800’s and which gave rise to the start of the modern game of golf. Then you would be hard pushed to find a more interesting course and it would be well worth the effort of travelling to Askernish on South Uist.
 
With you on that one Bill – when are you going to play Askernish?

[Adam Clayman]

To imply that anyone of those who make this field are not great ball strikers is silly.
 Jim Furyk should walk way this. 66 putts the first two days and he's still there.

It's important to have this style of golf highlighted. Identifying the best player on soft calm courses is a lessor test of mind, body and spirit.

 Screw the big world theory. This stuff rocks.

[Matt_Cohn]

the ball striker ?  Especially when combined with the inherent elements ?

When examining PGA tour stats such as fairways in regulation and bunkers saves, it would seem that those categories take on increased values on British Open courses, where missing fairways seems to have far more dire consequences, as does hitting the ball into those bunkers.

Play on PGA Tour courses seems more like a putting contest.

The British Open seems to be just the opposite.

Which would you prefer to watch, the PGA Tour or the British Open ?

Does the architecture at British Open courses, which produces doubles, triples and worse introduce a unique fear factor amongst the best players in the world ?

Is the introduction of blind shots unsettling to the best players in the world.

Lastly, do Tom Watson's five wins support this premise ?

Couldn't this also be TPC Sawgrass? Unsettling, doubles and triples everywhere, severe penalties for missing fairways, unique fear factor...yet putting is awfully important there.

The difference is that this week, for example, Birkdale's greens are flat. But why is Greg Norman leading? One word: putting.

Isn't it pretty well established that putting is always the most important part of the game?

[Bill_McBride]

With you on that one Bill – when are you going to play Askernish?

Melvyn, no plans to return to Scotland but would love to see Askernish.  I do hope to see you at Deal for next summer's Buda Cup.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Cohn,

When's the last time you made a birdie after driving out of bounds, into a water hazard or imbeded into a steep faced bunker.

You have to get to the green in regulation FIRST, before you can have a birdie putt.

[Jim Nugent]

Harrington, last year's winner, ranked 184 on tour in 2007 in ball striking.  He hit 57.52% of fairways, and just 60.3% of greens. 

Tiger won in 2005 and 2006.

Hamilton won in 2004.  That year on tour he ranked 184 in ball striking too.  He hit 58.7% of fairways and 62.7% of greens. 

2003 saw Curtis win.  He ranked 114 in ball striking.  Hit 67.33% of fairways and 64.46% of greens.

2002 winner was Els.  He ranked 154 in ball striking.  64% of fairways, 64.4% of greens.

2001 winner, Duval, ranked 32nd in ball striking.  65.3% fairways, 69.1% greens.

Tiger won in 2000.

1999 winner Paul Lawrie.  Stats not completely clear, but looks like he was middle of the pack that year on the Euro Tour in ball striking. 

1998 winner O'Meara ranked 150th in ball striking.

1997 winner Leonard ranked 140th in ball striking.  I stopped looking after this. 

For the last eleven years, I would say that overall ball striking ability has not been that important.  Most of the winners were in the bottom half of the stats.  Some near the very bottom. 

Maybe they turned that around during the Open Championship, and had great ball-striking weeks.  I don't have the stats for the actual tournaments.  My guess, though, is that the Open Championship does NOT require great ball striking.  As we see, plenty of poor to mediocre ball strikers win there.   

[George Pazin]

Rocco hit, what, 3 greens on Thursday and shot 1 over?

The Open Championship favors golfers. The PGA Tour favors driving range guys who can putt.

 

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt Cohn,

When's the last time you made a birdie after driving out of bounds, into a water hazard or imbeded into a steep faced bunker.

You have to get to the green in regulation FIRST, before you can have a birdie putt.

So your argument is that out-of-bounds, water hazards, and buried lies in steep-faced bunkers are good because they favor the better ball-strikers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Cohn,

When's the last time you made a birdie after driving out of bounds, into a water hazard or imbeded into a steep faced bunker.

You have to get to the green in regulation FIRST, before you can have a birdie putt.

So your argument is that out-of-bounds, water hazards, and buried lies in steep-faced bunkers are good because they favor the better ball-strikers?


No, that's not my argument.

Guess again.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

What you and others fail to understand is the conditions under which the British Open is conducted.

It's not the Phoenix or Doral Open.

Wind, cold, rain and the combination of those factors and other factors render statistical comparisons with the PGA Tour meaningless

[Adam Clayman]

There have been plenty of Open championships played in benign conditions.

[Matt_Cohn]

and plenty of Doral's and TPC's played in wind and/or rain.

[Tim Pitner]

and plenty of Doral's and TPC's played in wind and/or rain.

Matt,

Please name one U.S. tournament in the past 10 years that had conditions like those faced in the first round at Birkdale this year.  When it occurs, the combination of wind, rain (and cold) over there is much different than encountered on the PGA Tour. 

In answer to Pat's question, yes, I think the Open tests ball-striking and shot-making more than the average PGA Tour event and I enjoy watching it much more.  I'm not sure I accept the PGA Tour's ranking for ball-striking as totally reflective of a player's ability in that area.  For instance, Garcia has to be considered one of the best ball-strikers out there (just consider the number of shots he has), but I don't know how high he ranks in that statistic.  Ditto for Tiger. 

Another factor is the relative slowness of the greens at the Open.  It neutralizes the impact of putting on a tournament. 

The most important element in tough weather conditions, though, is attitude.  You may not think that players like Curtis and Hamilton are great ball-strikers, but they will hang in there and play golf.  Lawrie may have been a fluke winner, but, in rough weather, he hit one of the best, clutch long irons I've ever seen into Carnoustie's #18 in the playoff.  Guys like Pat Perez who bitch about the conditions are done before even starting. 

[David_Tepper]

The discussion depends on how one defines "ballstriker" vs. "shotmaker."  In basketball, some guys are known as "pure shooters" (think Ray Allen) and other guys are known as "scorers" (think Allan Iverson).  Nicklaus & Tiger were/are both great ballstrikers & shotmakers, just as Michael Jordan and Larry Bird were both great shooters and scorers.

Between them, Watson (5), Faldo (3), Seve (3) & Norman (2) have won 13 British Opens (and 8 Masters, I believe) and a combined total of ONE U.S. Open & zero U.S. PGA's. Include A. Palmer and the totals are 15 British Opens, 12 Masters, 2 U.S. Opens and still zero U.S. PGA's. 

On the other hand, Hale Irwin (3), Curtis Strange (2), Andy North (2) and Lee Janzen (2) have won a total of 9 U.S. Opens and NO Masters or British Opens.

At their very best, who would you rather watch play golf - Watson, Faldo, Seve, Norman & Palmer or Irwin, Strange, North & Janzen?
   

[David Lott]

I define ball striker as a player who can adjust height, trajectory, spin, distance (Norman's 120 yard 5 iron) with high reliability and excellent imagination. Tiger is a ball striker. Corey Pavin too. It's not just someone who can hit it pure--a lot of pros do that without first rate control of a variety of shots.

Certainly by this definition a number of Open courses favor the ball striker. They do so because of often difficult wind, hardness of fairways and greens and topography. All these elements require a player to land the ball in the right place, with the right speed, trajectory and spin.

It's how and where you land the ball that matters. Ball strikers have a better ability to control the way the ball comes to earth.

The relative (to American courses) lack of thick, penal rough also favors the striker. They can do more when in the rough.

I think Watson's success in the UK was more do to his fabulous putting and his amazing competitive spirit than to superior ball striking. He was a better than average striker but his greatest assets were guts and putting. The way he outdueled Nicklaus at Turnberry is best evidence of that--including making his relatively short putt at the last after Jack holed a long one.

Other examples of ball striker advantage: Faldo, Trevino, Player.

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt,

You are 100% correct. You've changed my mind about everything. You're awesome.

Just kidding Tim! I wanted to see if I could make it say that.      The next two quotes are real though:

Please name one U.S. tournament in the past 10 years that had conditions like those faced in the first round at Birkdale this year.  When it occurs, the combination of wind, rain (and cold) over there is much different than encountered on the PGA Tour.   

I doubt there have been more than one or two but I can't name them. I'm not sure what that proves.

Another factor is the relative slowness of the greens at the Open.  It neutralizes the impact of putting on a tournament. 

This is the part I totally disagree with. How can you argue that the effect of putting in the Open has been neutralized?! Have you been watching at all this week?!

The problem with the argument is that the logical extensions of that argument make no sense. For example, that argument suggests that scrambling ought to be relatively unimportant at Birkdale this week.

The argument also suggests that if we want to identify great ballstrikers, we would build courses with lots of water and OB, slow flat greens, and wind. Sounds like the Honda Classic.

I will agree that the conditions at Birkdale offer the opportunity for a player to distinguish himself from the field with his ballstriking. But it offers the same opportunity for players to do that so with putting as well.

Clearly, scrambling and putting are huge factors this week, and every week. To say that the effect of putting is neutralized under difficult conditions - on any kind of greens - just doesn't make any sense.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()