[Dave Doxey]

I don't see how scores, relative to par, indicate how good of a 'test' a course is.  Par is just a number.  Would it be a better test if the course played to a par 64?   Players played against each other, not the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

The ability to go low is a skill that not every golfer at the elite level possesses. Your baby changes as you get further under par. Par does indeed matter. The Web.com has chosen to reward this type of golfer.

[JESII]

The ability to go low is a skill that not every golfer at the elite level possesses. Your baby changes as you get further under par. Par does indeed matter. The Web.com has chosen to reward this type of golfer.

Agree 100%.


I wish Mark Broadie could analyze how players score on 525 yard par 4's versus 525 yard par 5's...and more importantly to me, how they scored on the following hole or two. I think the pressure to make a birdie is sometimes followed simply by relief whereas the pressure to make a par on a tough hole is a momentum builder if you pull it off.

[JMEvensky]

The ability to go low is a skill that not every golfer at the elite level possesses. Your baby changes as you get further under par. Par does indeed matter. The Web.com has chosen to reward this type of golfer.

I also agree 100% (98%?) but I think your last sentence needs tweaking.


It's not so much that the Web.com tour rewards this type of player, IMO. I think it's more likely that there's less caution on the Web tour than the PGAT. The rewards are so outsized at the top that every player is shooting at every flag on every hole.


It's as though the players are in a sprint on Web.com tour hoping to win a spot in a marathon on the PGAT.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat said:

"I honestly believe some really do not know how good some of the guys you think are dead weight are....they’re just not as good as the great players. Just like the top guys are a different level then most of the rest of the leagues players  in every other sport."

Thank you for the post and well said about top level players when compared to others on the PGATour.  If one of these young guns can't dominate on the minor league tour, where the great players aren't lurking week after week, I don't see any reason to indicate they would be competitive at the next level.

[Nick Ribeiro]

The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.

[Kalen Braley]

The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.

Is that so?

I think 20 yard wide fairways with 6 inch rough would do the trick 

[John Kavanaugh]

The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.

Is that so?

I think 20 yard wide fairways with 6 inch rough would do the trick 

Which only goes to prove that the Web.com can advance the type of player that they choose. They have chosen length over accuracy. It's only natural that players would in turn focus on that aspect of the game that brings success. Tighten up the set ups and the equipment "problem" will go away.

[Kalen Braley]

On a related note...this happened last week.  JK is that you!??! 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/golf-club-thief-dubbed-the-doof-of-hazzard-caught-thanks-to-funny-video-posted-by-police/ar-BBQQLmO?li=BBnba9I

[James Brown]

Kalen,
Yes I am saying there are more than 25 cards available if you make the 76-125 go through the Web.com Tour Finals and make it 75 spots available.  Also the previous Q school isn't similar to the Web.com Tour Finals.  The previous Q school was 108 holes played on consecutive days at the same course.  The Web.com Tour Finals are separate tournaments over 3-4 weeks. 

I don't have data either about how the 126-200 that went to web.com and earned their cards back.  I would just like to see more opportunities for young players to have starts on the big tour and making 76-125 qualify via the Web.com Tour Finals is a step in the right direction. If the 76-125 are better, we will find out over 3-4 tournaments against the Web.com guys.  Reward competence by proving it.  It isn't special to get 125 place on the PGA Tour where the guy probably only made 1/3 of the cuts and maybe had 2 top tens perhaps.
If anyone has numbers on this we would love to see it.

FWIW
My second year on the PGA Tour 1992, I believe I made 19 cuts and finished 128th, missing exempt status by less than 3000$


In my opinion, the idea that some exempt players are glorified placeholders keeping somebody back is just not correct. 
I missed three years with an injury from late ‘97-2000  came out and had to play Buy.com in 2000.  Could not practice much or play many practice rounds due to injury recovery.  Could only play two weeks in a row, and I finished Easily in the top 40.
It was a different generation, and there are definitely more good players in my opinion,
But I wasn’t close to the player I was prior to injury, and was very competitive, with more high finishes that season than I expected given my physical limitations.  And I was one of those guys dismissed in your post


I honestly believe some really do not know how good some of the guys you think are dead weight are....they’re just not as good as the great players.
Just like the top guys are a different level then most of the rest of the leagues players  in every other sport.

Couldn’t agree more with this sentiment.  Anyone who can win money on any tour is so good as to not merit derision for how they are somehow deficient for not being better.

[James Brown]

The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.

Is that so?

I think 20 yard wide fairways with 6 inch rough would do the trick 

Which only goes to prove that the Web.com can advance the type of player that they choose. They have chosen length over accuracy. It's only natural that players would in turn focus on that aspect of the game that brings success. Tighten up the set ups and the equipment "problem" will go away.

I don’t think the setups have a huge impact in this equation.  Long hitters by modern standards play just fine out of deep rough, 


As a competitive amateur, I am never more impressed that the ability of really strong golfers to hit out of deep rough.  One of the most impressive shots I ever saw was Hank Kuenhe hitting a wedge out of 6 inch rough like it was no big deal. 

[Peter Flory]

I don't see how scores, relative to par, indicate how good of a 'test' a course is.  Par is just a number.  Would it be a better test if the course played to a par 64?   Players played against each other, not the course.

I agree that par doesn't matter.  If you called a course a par 18, the golf wouldn't change at all.  On long par 4s vs short par 5s, I'm sure they set the pins up differently though. 

But to me, the issue is that the gross scoring is decreasing to a point where it's mostly GIRs and easy ones at that.  When the top 5 players on the PGA tour average a 2nd shot of a PW/9i into all par 4s and 5s, the courses are no longer good tests.  They aren't testing much except the players' ability to throw darts and make 10 foot putts. 

On the web.com, 34 players averaged less than 70 shots per round for the season.  In 1990, 0 players did.  In 2000, 0 players did.  Guys are just bullying the golf courses now.  They aren't really being tested.  1 player shot 41 straight rounds of par or better.  A guy went 220 consecutive holes without a 3-putt.  Someone hit 38 straight greens in regulation (and I'm sure a lot of them in under regulation).  In fact, 96 players on the Web.com tour this year had at least 1 streak of 18 straight GIR. 

I know it is an opinion, but to me, this kind of golf is dull at hell to watch.  I want to see some level of adversity out there to see who has the heart of a champion.  I don't want to watch a putting contest. 

[Jeff Schley]

Todays equipment/ball is like........

[BCrosby]

Peter -


Eye-popping. Even more so when you do historical look-backs. Wow.


Golf should be a difficult, challenging game. When it ceases to be, something has gone badly off the rails. 


Bob

[Kalen Braley]

Excellent last few posts gents.


I think with most things in my life, its all about balance.  Just like its not interesting to watch players hit driver/wedge on every par 4s, it wouldn't be any better to watch players hit driver/3 wood or long iron into every par 4.  Having a nice balance where players use every club in the bag is ideal.


James,


I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of deep rough.  The US team got slaughtered in the Ryder cup largely because they couldn't handle it.  But I would concur pros can handle normal length rough far better than even top AMs.

[John Kavanaugh]

You guys remind me of the suicidal poet waxing on about love. When exactly did it get too easy and why can't Tiger seem to figure it out? Golf that is.

[Peter Flory]

I think with most things in my life, its all about balance.  Just like its not interesting to watch players hit driver/wedge on every par 4s, it wouldn't be any better to watch players hit driver/3 wood or long iron into every par 4.  Having a nice balance where players use every club in the bag is ideal.

Exactly.  This is entertainment after all.  Variety makes it much more entertaining.  The ideal from my perspective is to see players have to spend a decent amount of energy strategizing/ managing their game, hitting a variety of shots from a variety of distances, and having to have the full short game arsenal. 


When you think of the most thrilling shots in history, it is things that happened despite adversity: Nicklaus hitting the pin with a 1 iron, Watson chipping in out of the deep rough, Tiger chipping in by using creativity off of a shelf, Bubba hooking a shot 40 yards from off the pine straw, Mickelson from the pine straw, Seve's parking lot shot, Tway's bunker shot, Larry Mize chipping in with an amazing bump and run, etc.  It isn't when a guy bombed it 330, stuck a wedge and drained the short putt. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing getting your nuts off in the Lazy Boy.

[Kalen Braley]

You guys remind me of the suicidal poet waxing on about love. When exactly did it get too easy and why can't Tiger seem to figure it out? Golf that is.

After Elin broke that 8 iron over his head, breaking his back multiple times, and now age...

I'm surprised you asked Barney, you of all people should know golf and multiple women on the side don't mix 

[John Kavanaugh]

Are you saying that modern equipment has made it more difficult for injured womanizers to compete? It never was a problem pre-Tiger.

[Peter Flory]

Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing getting your nuts off in the Lazy Boy.

Ha!  Is there already a thread for that? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()