[Michael Moore]

It seems like this happened all of a sudden - that everyone caught up with Bryson DeChambeau over the course of one month.
 
Best of the best? Hot and humid? Rock-hard fairways? Cutting the corners?
 
The larger issues escape me. I just don't want to watch driver-wedge on TV every weekend.

[MCirba]

From an ability to relate to the golf standpoint, it's virtually unwatchable.

The technology horse is so far out of the barn all you can see is the hind quarters.

[Terry Lavin]

Very firm fairways, due to two weeks of dry, very hot weather with big southwest winds accounted for a lot of the length. The first two days had the same conditions. It cooled down over the weekend but it was still windy.

[John Kavanaugh]

I had zero problem watching the guys this weekend having many of the same approaches I do at Victoria National. We just play from different tees.

[Thomas Dai]

For the watching public and golfers Pro golf is essentially entertainment and inspiring and educational so it’s a shame the way Men’s elite pro golf has developed over the last couple of decades. The players are fabulously skilful and can play the most amazing shots. I admire their ability hugely just like I do an elite soccer player or cricketer or rugby player etc etc.

But it’s nice, entertaining, to watch them play shots that others like me can’t play and whilst a 350 yd drive is pretty awesome in distance terms it’s not really any different from Mr and Mrs Average Amateur hitting a tee shot perfectly, it’s just that it travels a damn sight further and is likely to occur significantly more often. But the frequency is boring, especially at the top end of the leaderboard where the TV cameras are usually to be found.

There are however, some shots that Mr and Mrs Average Amateur aren’t likely to attempt let alone succeed at ..... long irons from tight lies, controlled draws and fades, fried egg bunker shots etc etc, shots that elite players can play but these days we seldom see such shots played, the nature of the present day elite Men’s pro game doesn’t require them to be played more than on a very, very occasional basis. In the past this wasn’t the case. The frequency of playing such shots was once significantly more. Indeed it was pretty much the norm.


Its enthralling, entertaining, to watch an elite pro play or attempt a near impossible shot, a shot Mr and Mrs Average Amateur couldn’t or is unlikely to try or succeed at. And to watch or hear the buzz within the crowd when elite pros do so (pre-Covid) is educational, inspiring, entertaining and produces a special, often unique, aura and memories that can last a long time.


So sad the way things have developed the last couple of decades.


Atb

[Matt_Cohn]

Because, given warm air and firm fairways, that’s just how far a large number of PGA Tour players hit it these days.

[Jason Thurman]

Yep. If you tuned in hoping to see an excellent test of golf, where firm and fast conditions coupled with hazards and other obstacles to create angles that mattered, then you were probably very satisfied by this tournament. If you tuned in hoping to see guys playing with a rolled back ball, well, you're probably going to be disappointed forever.


Living in the Midwest myself, I liked the familiarity of the challenge presented. Yesterday was probably the firmest and fastest day of the year so far at my club. I hit my longest drive of the year on at least three holes, maybe four. Now that you mention it, excluding the par 3s, my longest approaches yesterday were a couple 9 irons on the longest two par 4s on the course. But the firm conditions added challenge even to those shorter-than-usual approaches, and long rough combined with firm conditions made it easy to bounce out of position, and tough to control your ball and score once you got there. That sounds like what I saw on TV too.


We can't ask for firm and fast conditions that put a premium on good positioning and crisp strikes with one breath, and then lament that the ball runs out too far from the tee with the next.

[Jim Hoak]

Yet, it wasn't the length that won at Olympia Fields--it was accuracy.  Of course, Rahm and DJ had both.
It was great weather and yet around even par won.  I thought it was a victory for good course set-up at a mid-length course.  Disproves a bit maybe the need to obsess too much over length of the pros.
But more important, why do you as someone who loves golf worry so much about what the pros do?  I don't find courses too short for me--and I've been playing for many years and still love the game.
Sure, I'd like to see the pros have to hit more long irons, but I don't worry about it.  They are a very small part of the golf universe.  If the pro game went away, I'd still love golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
It was Par 70 and 7400 yards long!  I guess that is “mid-length” these days 


If the pro game only influenced a few courses, length might not be a big issue but unfortunately as we have discussed ad nauseum, it impacts many courses (and the college players are even longer)! 

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

Can't say I agree there.  Of the top 20 finishers yesterday, all but 3 (85%) were in the top 50% for Driving Distance on the year, 14/20 (70%) were in the top 25%, and the median 32.

Hitting it long is still very much King on tour...

[Carl Rogers]

NEWS FLASH! The closer you hit it to the hole, the lower your score!

[Peter Flory]

I knew these guys hit it far, but it was shocking watching it on a course that I know as well as that.  The things that stood out to me: #2- so many just bashed it over all the traps.  That hole is 490 and not that easy.  #4- Dustin nearly drove the green.  Usually hitting it up on the ridge is an accomplishment and that is the big dilemma on the hole.  #10- they made it a pitch and putt.  #11: Bryson carrying it onto the green with a 3-wood?  #12: so many guys hit controlled fade long irons close to the creek.  #14- became a layup hole for them.  #15- Bryson hits in the right hazard, chips out, and hits hybrid tight in the exhibition match... I've never seen a birdie there from the right hazard.  #16- seemed like nobody missed the green there.  #18: Rahm's drive was approaching the pond.  Even with having to hit towering shots over the tree, they cut the ball and still had short irons in. 


In 1928, Jones and Farrell were +10 for the tourney as a par 71 w/ 18 as a par 5.  To play that difficult now, it would have to be 8,000 yards I'd say, even with the rough and firm greens, etc. 

[Jim Hoak]

Kalen, I know you're right and I probably overstated my argument.
I'm just getting tired of reading by so many people on here about their incessant dismay about how far the pros and young, top amateurs hit it. 
I regard the pro game as the outlier, not the core, of our sport.  Sure I'd rather see the pros hit it less far, but I've chosen to ignore them--and retain my love for the game I've played my whole life.  It seems to me that many commentators on here think of the pro game as more central, more important, to the game of golf than I do.  As I said, if there were no pro game, I'd still love and play golf.  And some days, I wish it would go away, so we could proceed with the 99% that I know and love--and forget the aberration that is the 1%.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No one averaged over 339.5 (Bryson).  58 of 66 players averaged somewhere over 300, higher than a normal field, but then these were the top guys, I think.

[MCirba]

Yesterday, at age 62 I drove the green on a 315 yard slightly downhill, slightly downwind par four on a course built in 1927.  I even Google Earth'd it today to measure for accuracy.  I've played the hole at least 50 times in a variety of conditions and never prior got within about 25 yards.


I did miss the 12 foot eagle putt but I bet the course architect never saw that strategy coming.  Anyone claiming that technology gains have now been reigned in are kidding themselves.

[Tim_Cronin]

Here are some Olympia setup and scoring stats for those interested.


R1: 7,299 yards, 72.826 average, 3 rounds under par, 10 at par; 92 degrees, wind WSW 10-15, gust to 20 (weather from the Tour)
R2: 7,293 yards, 72.725 average, 8 rounds under par, 7 at par; 91 degrees, wind SW 10-18
R3: 7,244 yards, 71.391 average, 19 rounds under par, 10 at par; 78 degrees, wind NW 9-17
R4: 7,289 yards, 70.319 average, 33 rounds under par, 4 at par; 77 degrees, wind E 6-12

Overall 71.815 average, 63 rounds under par, 31 at par

Longest drive: 401 yards, DeChambeau, 17th hole, Thursday. Rahm hit 11 fairways and 17 greens on Sunday.

The second hole played 482, 467, 465 and 456 yards, tee to hole.


Finally, Jon Rahm opened with a 75. The last player to open with a 75 and win the Western Open was Walter Hagen, at Highland G&CC in Indianapolis, in 1926.

[jeffwarne]

Today, on yet another "irons only" range,
I decided to rebel and hit my driver in protest, in full view of the official in charge and range attendant.


No one objected......
and the ball was picked up soon enough by the range picker:(

[Rob Marshall]

Today, on yet another "irons only" range,
I decided to rebel and hit my driver in protest, in full view of the official in charge and range attendant.


No one objected......
and the ball was picked up soon enough by the range picker:(

That’s humiliating Jeff. You at least have to roll it to the net so the kid has to get out of the cart to pick it up!

[jeffwarne]

Today, on yet another "irons only" range,
I decided to rebel and hit my driver in protest, in full view of the official in charge and range attendant.


No one objected......
and the ball was picked up soon enough by the range picker:(

That’s humiliating Jeff. You at least have to roll it to the net so the kid has to get out of the cart to pick it up!

Yep he didn't even have to slow down.
Then on #1 I piped one into the wind, intending to turn it off the right bunker which I had lazered the entrance to at 259...
Stayed just inches short of the bunker, rolled right into the divot of the kid who had teed off in front of me...with an iron..


My new quest is for a rollback-for everyone else:)

[Kalen Braley]

Hey Jim,

I get it.  And that's why I'm just comparing the pros against other pros, and trying to figure out what matters most to be successful on tour.  But it does impact the rest of us in some way or the other whether that comes in courses adding way back tees, hitting balls further off line, additional costs to play as courses acquire and maintain bigger chunks of land, etc.

I'm currently in the process of doing some further analysis going back to 1980.  I'm specifically looking at where the winners on tour were in relation to driving distance off the tee vs accuracy.  I did the stats for last year and it overwhelming showed that distance off the tee was not only the #1 predictor of who wins week in and week out, but in general the more accurate one was in hitting the fairway, the lower the chance was to win. My hypothesis is that skills requiring to win were less skewed towards distance off the tee in the near past and I'm curious how that stacks up in 2010, 1990, and 1980 for all PGA event winners.

[Jim Hoak]

That will be an interesting analysis, Kalen.
This morning, in the digital version of Golf Digest, is an article saying that distance doesn't guarantee winning.  In fact, their graphs show that other factors enter in significantly.
I know it's course-specific, but I agree with that conclusion that length of the key is not the primary ingredient to success.  Sure it helps to  hit it long.  And straight.  And both is even better.  And many courses are putter-courses, where that is the key determinant of victory.  But I think that proximity to the hole is really the key determinant--at least for most of us amateurs.  But you can argue that distance off the tee certainly helps with closeness on approaches.  It is all related.

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

Thanks for mentioning that, just looked it up.  After a quick read, it looks like they may have chose too few data points.  Not sure how conclusive it is just looking at the top 10 on the money list, especially if you get hot and win a big money event, with a number of other lower finishes.

The analysis I did for last year included all those stats: DD, Driving Accuracy, GIR, Putting, and one additional one -Scrambling. But instead of just looking at the top 10, I did the analysis for every winner in all 42 events.  The data showed:

Driving Distance - 52.4% of the winners were in the top 25% on Tour - Median winner 36
GIR - 40.5% of the winners were in the top 25% on Tour - Median winner 60
Scrambling - 33.3% of winners were in the top 25% on Tour - Median winner 75
Total Putting - 23.8% of winners were in the top 25% on Tour - Median winner 78
Driving Accuracy - 19% of winners were in the top 25% on Tour. - Median winner 99

But then again, their article is looking at what are the best players doing vs I was looking at who specifically is winning and where do they stack up.  I think their analysis would be far more interesting if they looked at the top 25 or 30 each year, not just the top 10.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()