[Thomas Dai]

Most weeks it seems like the field at the start of most men’s tour events we see on TV is 156 although sometimes this is less.

The question is, should ALL those who tee it up on day 1 have an equal chance of winning and if not is the course set-up lousy?

That’s ALL of them, all types of player, having a chance to win, be they - long ball, high hitting, bomb and gauge players - short hitting, low trajectory players - those with great short games and/or putt consistently excellently. And not just winning if some guy is having a ‘hot week’ either.

Atb

[Tom_Doak]

How could you have set up any course to give 150 other guys an equal chance against Tiger Woods in 2000?


Maybe a few bulls strategically placed to go after guys wearing a red shirt? 😀

[Kalen Braley]

I agree with Thomas's original post, he just needs to remove the word equal.


Equality will never exists in sports, its about giving the field a realisitic chance at winning....aka not setting up a course so it harshly punishes those who aren't long and strong like BPB.

[Jason Topp]

I believe it is neither feasible or desirable to have a course set up that is neutral as to the type of player.  I would prefer more variety in course setups so that hopefully things would even out over time.  Grainy slow greens one week, fast ones the next.  Long narrow courses v. wide strategic courses. 


The majors used to do this pretty well.  The Masters presented a wide but strategic challenge.  The US Open presented a narrow, penal challenge.  The Open provided a links challenge and the PGA provided something more similar to a regular PGA Tour event.


Those categories are more muddled in recent years as Augusta National has tightened up driving through rough and trees, the US Open has been all over the map and the Open rota courses seem to add an endless array of fairway pot bunkers and narrowed fairways that dictates play.  Bethpage was indistinguishable from a US Open last week - without the goofy setup mistakes.

[Pete_Pittock]

Would St Andrews (Old) come the closest?  or Royal Birkdale?


Architecturally I don't think it is possible to equalize, but a combination of architecture plus targeted conditioning would come closer. Variable green speeds is nice, so would be unkempt bunkers. Confrontation and the handling of it is the essence.


With only 40 or so tournaments during a PGA Tour year, 3/4 of the players are not going to win that year, they are going after the money. Since the Tour is partially controlled by the tour players I don't see the 156 number going down. My solution would be to cut the tour field to 132, which speeds up the game considerably by eliminating the split tee dam, and having two co-equal second tier tours 

[jeffwarne]

No


156 players never have an equal chance


first, many(5-20) are ceremonial players (Masters Ams, PGA Club pros, sponsor's exemptions etc., open qualifiers)
second-what if one prepared harder than the rest, or comes in playing better
Third-as Jason laid out, different courses/events favor certain kinds of players-never good to try to be all things to all people.


and Tiger(now Koepka) has shown he can win anywhere in any conditions/setups

[David_Tepper]

"The question is, should ALL those who tee it up on day 1 have an equal chance of winning and if not is the course set-up lousy?"


I do not accept this notion at all. Speed and power is rewarded in every sport I can think of. Why should golf be an exception? The ability to hit a golf ball a long way has always been and always should be an advantage.


Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Norman, Tiger, etc. were among the longest hitters (and the most dominate players) of their eras. Rightly so in my opinion.

[James Brown]

I think so, at least I terms of playing styles.  The tour venue that does this best is probably TPC Sawgrass. 

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for all your thoughts.


I doubt there’s much dispute that long hitters have always had an advantage and it can’t be often that the whole field has an equal chance to win, nice though it may be to imagine it.


So let’s try a different angle of discussion.


Given the way courses are usually set-up these days, for both majors and seemingly most other events, could a Gary Player type player win 8 Majors? Or a Nick Faldo 6? Or a Peter Thomson 5? Or a Bobby Locke 4? Or a Larry Nelson, Hale Irwin, Billy Casper, Nick Price win 3? Let’s not go below 3 majors please.


Yes long hitters have won and do win a significant proportion of the time, but has the proportion won by long hitters increased over the last few decades and has course set-up been a factor in this?


Atb

[Brad Payne]

I say no. In the NBA or NFL, do all teams on day 1 have an equal chance of winning the championship? Definitely not.

[Mark_Fine]

Since when did golf become fair 

[Kalen Braley]

I think what Thomas was trying to ask, and please correct me Thomas....


Should a course setup, like BPB, be put in place where the vast majority of the field is effectively eliminated due to the length, narrow fairways, and punishing rough? 


 I know what my answer is, but given golf has unique venues for every tournament, I would think there would be an emphasis on giving the most amount of players, with their own varying skill sets, the ability to shine and compete in thier own way..

[David_Tepper]

"Yes long hitters have won and do win a significant proportion of the time, but has the proportion won by long hitters increased over the last few decades and has course set-up been a factor in this?"

Winners of Majors who would not be considered as "bombers":

2009 - Luca Glover, Stewart Cink, Yang Yong-eun

2010 - Graeme McDowell, Louis Oosthuizon, Martin Kaymer

2011 - Charl Schwartzel, Darren Clarke, Keegan Bradly

2012 - Webb Simpson

2013 - Jason Dufner

2014 - Martin Kaymer

2015 - Jordan Speith (2x), Zach Johnson

2016 - Danny Willett, Henrik Stenson, Jimmy Walker

2017 - Jordan Speith

2018 - Patrick Reed, Francesco Molinari

Based on that information, I would say the answer to the question is "no."

[Thomas Dai]

Kalen,
Correct! By the way, there’s a nice line on social media in this regard - “It’s awful to watch, it’s awful to look at. It’s a distortion of what golf was meant to be.”


David,
Once-off and even two-off winners I suggest should not be considered in this respect. A ‘hot week’ isn’t the same as long term success. And by the way Messrs Oosthuizen, Kaymer, Clarke, Stensen and Walker ain’t by any means short and I suggest that most of the other names you’ve mentioned, YY and ZJ apart, are not as relatively short in this era as the names I mentioned above were in their era. As to Molinari, it’s been admitted that increased length of shot has been key to his recent ascent in the game. And in relation to power and strength in sport, well that does depend on the narrowness or wide ness of the definition of sports.




Interesting that someone should mention TOC above. Somewhere where we’ve been advised that the fairways will be narrower, eg on the 17th, for the next Open than in previous years. Also how ANGC, where the intent was essentially once TOC like, has morphed away from such in recent decades.


As such imo the opportunities for the Player, Faldo, Thomson, Locke, Nelson/Irwin/Price/Casper like player to compete at the highest level and win to the extent that these guys did has very sadly declined and that the way courses and tournament venues with long term traditions in the game in particular are now set-up (and maintained) has a huge amount to do with this.


Atb

[Jason Thurman]

I think what Thomas was trying to ask, and please correct me Thomas....


Should a course setup, like BPB, be put in place where the vast majority of the field is effectively eliminated due to the length, narrow fairways, and punishing rough? 


 I know what my answer is, but given golf has unique venues for every tournament, I would think there would be an emphasis on giving the most amount of players, with their own varying skill sets, the ability to shine and compete in thier own way..

Got it. So this is just another version of the thread you guys already turn every thread into.


That helps. Before your post, I thought it was the silliest question I had ever heard asked. But now I can see that it's just a rhetorical thought exercise where we revel in our own enlightenment on the way to another double bogey that we'll blame Rees Jones and the culture of modern golf for.

[David_Tepper]

Thomas -

I think the changes to the ball and equipment have had far more impact than "lousy course set-ups." In fact, I am not sure the course set-ups 40-50 years ago were not "lousy-er," with US Open rough up to your knees and rough around the greens above your ankles. Remember the "massacre" at Winged Foot or the year Paul Lawrie won at Carnoustie?

These days everyone is long or at least longer. But I am not sure the relative gap between the longest hitters and the rest of the guys is any wider than it was 40-50 years ago.   


As to why there are more 1 or 2 time major winners these days (if that is even really the case), that could be a function of the depth of the fields. I think there are far more players in these events capable of winning a major than there used to be.


Coincidence is not causation.

DT

PS - In which sports is speed and power not an asset?

[Michael Felton]

PS - In which sports is speed and power not an asset?

Darts? Struggling much beyond that. One interesting comparison I think is tennis. In tennis you have the grass at Wimbledon, the clay at Roland Garros and the hard courts at Flushing and wherever they play the Australian Open. The different surfaces suit different types of player. I believe they have changed the balls a little bit too, so that serve and volley is less prominent than it used to be even on grass. That said, the slowest court, which is least favorable to the powerful serve is clay and I'd think Rafael Nadal has been one of the most powerful tennis players of a generation, so even there power and speed is still the be all and end all.

Thomas - not sure I'd describe Nick Price as short. Back in 1993 in his heyday, he was 11th on the PGA Tour for driving distance. Similarly, Nick Faldo, pre-Leadbetter was one of the longest players out there. I'm sure that his swing rebuild would have focused more on power had he been a young man now. I don't know that he would have won 6, but the golfing world is deeper now than it was in the late 80s, early 90s. I think he'd still be one of the best and I think he'd have found a way.

[Ronald Montesano]

Kaymer, Bradley, Reed and Stenson are plenty long. The rest I agree with. I love that little-known Italian, Luca Glover.

[James Brown]

Thanks for all your thoughts.


I doubt there’s much dispute that long hitters have always had an advantage and it can’t be often that the whole field has an equal chance to win, nice though it may be to imagine it.


So let’s try a different angle of discussion.


Given the way courses are usually set-up these days, for both majors and seemingly most other events, could a Gary Player type player win 8 Majors? Or a Nick Faldo 6? Or a Peter Thomson 5? Or a Bobby Locke 4? Or a Larry Nelson, Hale Irwin, Billy Casper, Nick Price win 3? Let’s not go below 3 majors please.


Yes long hitters have won and do win a significant proportion of the time, but has the proportion won by long hitters increased over the last few decades and has course set-up been a factor in this?


Atb

I say yes.


Gary Player was not a short hitter in his day.  More like above average and very long for his size at 150 lbs.  Somewhat similar to Rory today.   In 1988 on the Champions tour at age 53 was 37th in driving distance.


Faldo would win in any age.  That guy was all world talent and scaled back his distance in exchange for accuracy. 


Peter Thomson would kill on tour today with modern equipment.  Go watch his old videos.  His swing was amazing. 


Don’t know about the rest but these three were studs in any age.  Athleticism and talent have always been rewarded. 

[Thomas Dai]

Although I could disagree on the detail I certainly hope these guys and others with similar games would be able to compete these days on a very regular rather than occasional course or weather conditions basis. I fear the opposite however.
When highly talented players struggle to reach fairways from the tee it’s a concern, at least to me!
And a raking low hook to pick up distance through roll would probably hit a tree 40 yds in front of a tee on some courses these days and even if it missed and managed to carry the manicured rough it would then most likely stop quickly on now irrigated, lush fairways (sic)!

As Jack Nicklaus has said, “Golf was once a game of precision. It’s now a game of power.”

Atb

[OChatriot]

Had a chance to spend a day with Mick Doran last week, currently caddy of E. Pepperell.  Having caddied for Molinari, Rocca, Westwood, Rose,  Howell, D Clarke , Bjorn, Brendan Steele, he knows a thing or two...

I asked him about Bethpage Black and he told me some players cannot win there, and he would advise them to just skip it. No point going. Obviously the Tour pressure, points, ranking and sponsors do not allow a top 100 player to skip a Major if he is not injured. So they go.
As someone pointed out before, the leaderboard at Pebble Beach should be very different.

I also asked him what could be done to remedy slow play. He said the fields were way too large. 80-100 players should be the max, and always make the slow players play last.  I suggested enforcing the watch, fines etc...he thinks it's not doable.

I believe the pace of certain players hampers the chances of some others. So if you are teeing off late behind the very slow, your chances diminish, as if the set-up of the course doesn't suit you.

[David_Tepper]

As Jack Nicklaus has said, “Golf was once a game of precision. It’s now a game of power.”

That is actually pretty funny, since Nicklaus dominated the game with his power, rather than his precision,  50-60 years ago. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()