[David Ober]

Is there a Golden Age of scoring?


I'm a bit perplexed by some of the extreme negative responses to the distance boom. I know many are concerned about courses having to be longer and longer in order to "contain" or "challenge" the long hitters of today. And I know that architecture can only be relevant for so long if players keep hitting the ball longer and longer. I do, honestly, share those concerns.


But with regard to distance as it pertains to scoring, why do some get so offended?


What are players "supposed to" shoot? Should scores by professionals have to conform to some kind of preconceived notion of what the right approximate score is for a professional? Why is low bad? Why do we care? Do we think it's somehow not challenging for a Dustin Johnson to shoot ~30-under in a four-round tournament (Souchak shot 27-under ... in 1955!)? Why is seeing players frequently saving par somehow more desirable than watching the very best make a bushel full of birdies for four consecutive days?


in the early 1900's, any professional who shot three straight 75's (or higher!) had a very good chance of winning any golf tournament contested, from the Western Open to any of golf's majors. Is that the right "era of scoring" to return to? Or how about the 1700's when golfers shot a bazillion and seven? Is it, then, the 1950's - 1980's when the course/equipment/player meld was "just right" that we should seek return to, scoring-wise?


Is scoring something we should even care about? If so, why? If not, why not?


If a pro going "ridiculously low" on an outdated 7,000 yard golf course is "bad," why don't we just make the cup a tiny bit smaller? If one wants to "challenge players" and today's equipment and ball make the game too easy to do that, seriously, why not just make the cup smaller for the pros (don't think I'm the first to suggest this).


But if one's answer is: "Of course not, that's silly. Golf is a game of tradition and the hole must remain the same size for everyone!" Then I go back to my original question: What is the "right" score range for pros, or anyone, to shoot? I recently tied the lowest round of my life and bested my previous competitive low by two shots -- at 53 years old and with a horrible back.


I'm 30 to 40 yards shorter than I was in my 30's. I drive the ball 235 to 255 and can use every single bit of technical innovation I can get -- from the golf ball to the lighter, custom-fit shafts and bigger heads. I did it on a 6,570 yard course in the final round of our club championship, and I couldn't be happier with the 1 to 2 strokes a round technology has given me from when I first took up the game in ~1990.


I can tell you that golf is still plenty challenging for me, new fangled equipment and rocket ball notwithstanding. I miss 6 to 9 greens a round, can hardly ever reach a par 5 in two, and generally play golf the way it was "intended(?)" to be played, hitting long clubs and even fairway wood into "long" (450 yard) par 4's and playing virtually all 500+ yard par 5's as three shot holes.


And I love golf today. Absolutely love it. In fact, I daresay that technology has allowed me to continue loving it for just a bit longer than I would if equipment and/or the ball had been somehow "capped." Maintaining (and even improving) one's handicap as one ages is a glorious thing. It keeps me coming back over and over and over to see if I can somehow tie or break our course record, win a club championship, or break my personal best.


I've no doubt that both advances in equipment and ball technology have helped me play as well as ever -- and I, for one, have no problem with that.

[MCirba]

David,

I'm less concerned about what they are scoring than how they are scoring, if that makes sense.

When every non-par three hole on a course is driver, short-iron, it makes for a very boring, one-dimensional game.

I'm 62 years old and I'm much longer than I was when I was in my 20s and 30s.   I've returned to courses I played in my youth and drive the ball 20-30 yards further than I ever did back then.

I'd simply add that expanding the footprint of our classic courses is in many cases not possible, and building gigantic, new "championship" courses runs counter to any type of golf sustainability model one might envision.

[David Ober]

David,

I'm less concerned about what they are scoring than how they are scoring, if that makes sense.

When every non-par three hole on a course is driver, short-iron, it makes for a very boring, one-dimensional game.

I'm 62 years old and I'm much longer than I was when I was in my 20s and 30s.   I've returned to courses I played in my youth and drive the ball 20-30 yards further than I ever did back then.

I'd simply add that expanding the footprint of our classic courses is in many cases not possible, and building gigantic, new "championship" courses runs counter to any type of golf sustainability model one might envision.

Of course, Mike. Agree about the courses.


One thing about the "Driver, short-iron plays, though: "Short iron" for some of these guys is PW, 9-iron or 8-iron that they are hitting from 170 to 200(!), depending on the conditions. So, yes, they are hitting "short iron," but by no means is the shot, itself always short. If that makes sense...

[Ira Fishman]

David,

I'm less concerned about what they are scoring than how they are scoring, if that makes sense.

When every non-par three hole on a course is driver, short-iron, it makes for a very boring, one-dimensional game.

I'm 62 years old and I'm much longer than I was when I was in my 20s and 30s.   I've returned to courses I played in my youth and drive the ball 20-30 yards further than I ever did back then.

I'd simply add that expanding the footprint of our classic courses is in many cases not possible, and building gigantic, new "championship" courses runs counter to any type of golf sustainability model one might envision.

Mike, forget about the Pros. I want to know how you got longer! I am 62 and getting shorter it seems like every few months. I had clubs fitted and even started working out (for first time since high school) with a TPI instructor, switched to a lower compression ball. No real progress. What is your secret?


Ira

[David Ober]

David,

I'm less concerned about what they are scoring than how they are scoring, if that makes sense.

When every non-par three hole on a course is driver, short-iron, it makes for a very boring, one-dimensional game.

I'm 62 years old and I'm much longer than I was when I was in my 20s and 30s.   I've returned to courses I played in my youth and drive the ball 20-30 yards further than I ever did back then.

I'd simply add that expanding the footprint of our classic courses is in many cases not possible, and building gigantic, new "championship" courses runs counter to any type of golf sustainability model one might envision.

Mike, forget about the Pros. I want to know how you got longer! I am 62 and getting shorter it seems like every few months. I had clubs fitted and even started working out (for first time since high school) with a TPI instructor, switched to a lower compression ball. No real progress. What is your secret?


Ira

Ira,


In general, unless you are a low (below 90mph) club head speed player, lower compression balls are going to slightly to moderately HURT your driver distance, but HELP your distance with irons -- especially lofted clubs.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Let's also not forget that lofts have changed as well.  Today's 9 iron is equivalent to what 1970s club in terms of loft?  A 7 iron?

[David Ober]

Let's also not forget that lofts have changed as well.  Today's 9 iron is equivalent to what 1970s club in terms of loft?  A 7 iron?

Yes, although that varies quite a bit form player to player, I believe. Many Tour players' 9-irons are now ~40 degrees or less, with pitching wedges in the 46 to 48 degree range.


That's about a full club stronger than they used to be.


I'm really just concerned with DISTANCE. a 190 yard shot is not an easy shot, regardless of what club you are hitting. PGA Tour Pros average about 6.5% of the distance they are from they hole when hitting a shot from the fairway.


So a 200 yard shot from the fairway for the median PGA Tour Pro, will end up 13 yards (42 feet) from the pin. No one on tour is consistently sticking it close from 180 to 200 -- no matter what club they are hitting.


I just wish they played more holes that left the longest hitters ~200 yards out, but that would mean the shortest guys on tour would be 240+ out! How do you possibly build courses that are challenging for both those golfer types?

[MCirba]

Mike, forget about the Pros. I want to know how you got longer! I am 62 and getting shorter it seems like every few months. I had clubs fitted and even started working out (for first time since high school) with a TPI instructor, switched to a lower compression ball. No real progress. What is your secret?


Ira

Ira,

I'm juicing. 

No, seriously...I was having the same type of slow degradation in distance but at about age 50 I decided to get serious about fitness and have pretty religiously done various "at home" programs such as p90x and Jillian Michaels 90 Day Body revolution that are a mix of weight resistance, flexibility, balance, etc., lost 25 pounds in the middle, gained muscle mass while retaining flexibility.   I'm also much more health conscious with diet, still having an occasional cheese steak or whatever I'm in the mood for but lots of lean meats, fruit, veggies, etc.   Truth be told, I feel better at 62 than I did at 30 or 40.   

So, that's part of it, but there is no question in my mind that the technological improvements in the ball continue unabated, no matter what they say.   I recently bought a dozen Titleist AVX balls and played a nine-hole course I play fairly regularly and hit the ball on an unremarkable day to places I'd never reached prior.   

I've also in the past year or so started to take swing theory more seriously and consciously tried to "get good again", and discovered some mechanics that when I do it correctly allow me to fully release the club without fear of my worst shot, the duck hook that runs forever until it finds trouble that has plagued me in the past.   Of course, golf being golf, I'm hitting the ball really well most days but my old nemesis the yips and chip yips are resurfacing in recent weeks.

[Ira Fishman]

Mike,


There is no doubt that the exercise has helped me feel better and probably my game as well. But I am not nearly as disciplined as you except about diet (exception being bourbon) so I guess I will have to resign myself to my fate.


Ira

[Peter Sayegh]

David,I agree with you that golf for me is now more enjoyable than ever. I may buy the shiniest new driver every four years but I've used my beloved Ping Zings for the last 25+ years. The thrill for me is seeing that (too often) nasty/crazy lie I find myself in and trying to make a positive shot.

As for the score question, I've never understood why some on this board bemoan the scores of professional golfers. Obviously, they play a different game than most golfers. I will never play 99% of the courses used for the majors; I also don't let the scoring change my (very remote) opinion of any golf course. I rely on the (amateur, yet informed) opinions of many here.

If there were twenty golfers under par this week would WFW be held in less regard? Would there be a mass member exodus? Would the super really relinquish his spot?

Tiger once "destroyed" Augusta and Pebble Beach. I'd gladly play both and shoot my customary 83...or 95.

[David Ober]

David,I agree with you that golf for me is now more enjoyable than ever. I may buy the shiniest new driver every four years but I've used my beloved Ping Zings for the last 25+ years. The thrill for me is seeing that (too often) nasty/crazy lie I find myself in and trying to make a positive shot.

As for the score question, I've never understood why some on this board bemoan the scores of professional golfers. Obviously, they play a different game than most golfers. I will never play 99% of the courses used for the majors; I also don't let the scoring change my (very remote) opinion of any golf course. I rely on the (amateur, yet informed) opinions of many here.

If there were twenty golfers under par this week would WFW be held in less regard? Would there be a mass member exodus? Would the super really relinquish his spot?

Tiger once "destroyed" Augusta and Pebble Beach. I'd gladly play both and shoot my customary 83...or 95.

Amen to that, Peter! The challenge of golf is never-ending, and its main allure for me, as well. :-)

[Michael Felton]

5 and 16 at WFW are I think both par 5s for the members. If not, then they should be. Bryson was the only person under par against a par of 70, but if par was 72 (which it really was - they just fiddled the numbers on two holes), then there were 16 people under par. Par is just a number. It doesn't matter what score wins - I'd say it matters how well it separates the players. Heck, you could call 6 a par 3 and 9 a par 4 and now no one was under par. Bryson still won by 6, but he was +2 now and the field was +8.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()