Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Thomas Dai on June 25, 2020, 09:31:54 AM
-
Someone usually takes the rap.
Even though it was far from just him involved, Lawson Little usually takes the rap for the introduction of the 14-club rule.*
Should it occur, is it likely that Bryson DeChambeau will get the rap for causing a rollback in distance?
???
atb
* and did the club manufacturers of the time whinge and contact their lawyers when this rule came into effect?
-
I would like to think the rulesmakers are not that obtuse as to change a rule due to hardwork and personal innovation, available only to said player.(until someone else follows suit)
earned, not bought
There are a 100 other reasons for a rollback-personal improvement should not be one of them.
In fact, a rollback of 20% would HELP him
-
I doubt that the clubmakers cared. Their customers were part of the super-fringe game that golf was in the 19430. People were still broke, and they were happy to sell any clubs at all. At least in the USA, when Eisenhower's enthusiasm collided with television's rise, more folks came to the game.
An interesting game (could not be a study) is to ask self which decade would have been the tipping point for the 14-club rule? Would club companies have fought it in the 40s? 50s? 60s? 70s? We know that Karsten dug in during the 1980s over the topic of grooves.
-
In fact, a rollback of 20% would HELP him
That is not necessarily true.
Do you think that being a long hitter meant even more back in 1975?
It's all relative, but when you couldn't get to wedge distance on every hole, other skill sets were a bigger part of the picture. So, a rollback would help long hitters to a point, but if rolled back far enough, it might change the balance of power in unforeseen ways.
And that's why a lot of players are nervous about the possibility. The people at the top of the pyramid are always going to resist change.
-
There is a parallel, I think:
Relative to Little's 30+ clubs in the British Am, the USGA limit of 14 was a 'roll back' -- but not so much compared to Quimet's 7 clubs in the US Open. Similarly, with each passing year, the dramatic distance gains (especially for already-long hitters) that occurred circa 2000-2005 fade more and more into the past -- as much ancient history to us as Quimet's 1907 win seemed to those in the mid 1930s. Which is to say: I've never been more doubtful of a meaningful roll-back as I am today. The 'new normal' in distance is so outlandish (and so outlandishly common) that, now, to think of 295 yard drives as an ideal/upper end would appear as unrealistic & anachronistic as advocating for a return to persimmon and steel. Might there be some new USGA-imposed 'cap' on ball & club technology? Yes, there might be -- but if so I have a feeling that the phrase 'at current levels/specs' will be involved.
-
In fact, a rollback of 20% would HELP him
That is not necessarily true.
Do you think that being a long hitter meant even more back in 1975?
yes
see Nicklaus-no par 5's. Leading Jones to say "he plays a game with which I am not familiar"
see Tiger in 1997-2001(before ProV 1) no par 5's
1997 was a distance dismantling of the course at Augusta
post 2001 when suddenly there were no par 5's for most of the rest of the tour, Tiger dominated via the best short game and putting in history, not via his dominant length-because many got long, and he stuck with a shorter steel driver for a long time
No proV 1 or thin faced drivers and Tiger has 5 more majors ;)
-
In fact, a rollback of 20% would HELP him
That is not necessarily true.
Do you think that being a long hitter meant even more back in 1975?
yes
see Nicklaus-no par 5's. Leading Jones to say "he plays a game with which I am not familiar"
see Tiger in 1997-2001(before ProV 1) no par 5's
1997 was a distance dismantling of the course at Augusta
post 2001 when suddenly there were no par 5's for most of the rest of the tour, Tiger dominated via the best short game and putting in history, not via his dominant length
No proV 1 or thin faced drivers and Tiger has 5 more majors ;)
Nicklaus (pretty much from the start) and Woods (after a little while) had something that most/many long hitters don’t have though ... patience, lots and lots of patience. The patience to play within their personal game plan to achieve the best possible score after 4-days, 72-holes recognising that their length advantage allowed them to not hit Driver to achieve the desired end result.
And then after such ‘matters internal within golf’ we come to the finite planet and public safety issues.
Atb
-
Yesterday - https://twitter.com/i/status/1276592234775711744 (https://twitter.com/i/status/1276592234775711744)
This is worth watching too - https://twitter.com/i/status/1276652037418123265
atb
-
We know that Karsten dug in during the 1980s over the topic of grooves.
If you look at that dispute carefully, you'd see that Karsten wasn't objecting over square grooves. They were permitted both before and after the rule change.
Two things pissed him off. First, in his view as an engineer they'd invented a method of measuring groove width that wasn't correct by engineering standards. What happened was that he made his Eye2 irons with legal square grooves that had sharp shoulders. That tore up golf balls, so he softened the edges.
Then the USGA decided that grooves weren't going to be measured by their actual width, but by a point on the curve of the shoulder that was touched by a set angle gauge. Which he thought was bullshit, and so did I.
He also wanted to protect the people who had already purchased Eye2 irons from having their clubs declared non-conforming.
So he sued.
When he settled, he got his existing irons approved and changed the grooves on his irons going forward. When the USGA created their stupid groove "condition of competition" that finally banned U grooves, Phil Mick brought out his 20-year-old Ping irons because the settlement superceded the new rule.
John Solheim caved to the USGA and agreed to dropping the exception. I'd have told them to stuff it, and suspect Karsten was rolling over in his grave.
-
Am I incorrect in believing the two greatest players of all time earned that distinction primarily through hitting it closer to the hole with the longest clubs? Sure they were long, which people notice, but that isn't what established their dominance.
Probably can add Ben Hogan who didn't drive as far as he could, but drove to locations where his stance and lie let him hit it close even with a longer club. In the few long drive competitions Ben participated in, he finished at or near the top.
-
Whether or not rolling back distance is a good idea, it has dead zero to do with DeChambeau. And I think there are more questions than answers about what he is doing at this point.
If majors are the measure, will the approach that he is taking get him over the top in those events?
Whether or not he wins big this way, is his approach of a couple of hours a day of intense workouts and a half dozen protein shakes per day sustainable going forward? Remember, he put on the most recent 20+ lbs and added the most recent yardage while there were no events being played.
Will other players be able to cut and paste what he is doing to their own routines and games and lives?
DeChambeau is an outlier in almost any aspect of golf that you can think of. It's a basic rule of sports that the more different someone is from the norms of their sport, the shorter their arc, and the less likely it is to be copied. Don't mistake what DeChambeau is doing right now as any sort of fundamental change in the way the game is played. It might be someday, and time will tell, but right now, it's one guy doing weird s***, which happens to be his specialty.
-
AG,
Watching the vicious way he swings is the real issue to the Bryson D dilemma. I just wonder how long his back will hold up with the various forces at work. Even Tiger knew fairly early on he couldn't sustain his career with the ferocious swipes he was regularly taking in competition.
-
DeChambeau can fool you with his science. First and foremost he is in incredible control of a golf club. He literally can take a full swing and stop at ball one time and hit it next and there is no difference to the naked eye until he doesn't hit the ball. he can hit beautiful high cuts to a green 100 yards away with a less than 20 degree club. He is Lee Trevino in many ways. If anyone can do this and control distance he can. Who knows?
-
There is a parallel, I think:
Relative to Little's 30+ clubs in the British Am, the USGA limit of 14 was a 'roll back' -- but not so much compared to Quimet's 7 clubs in the US Open. Similarly, with each passing year, the dramatic distance gains (especially for already-long hitters) that occurred circa 2000-2005 fade more and more into the past -- as much ancient history to us as Quimet's 1907 win seemed to those in the mid 1930s. Which is to say: I've never been more doubtful of a meaningful roll-back as I am today. The 'new normal' in distance is so outlandish (and so outlandishly common) that, now, to think of 295 yard drives as an ideal/upper end would appear as unrealistic & anachronistic as advocating for a return to persimmon and steel. Might there be some new USGA-imposed 'cap' on ball & club technology? Yes, there might be -- but if so I have a feeling that the phrase 'at current levels/specs' will be involved.
There already is a USGA/R&A cap on ball performance, including distance under standard conditions. This can be found at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/equipment-standards/test-protocols-for-equipment-9df6d04f.html
and says that at a clubhead speed of 120 mph and ball speed of 175 mph the maximum distance allowed is 317 yards +/- 3 yards. Of course, these values are far less than the speeds generated by a number of players, including DeChambeau. The likelihood of a new USGA/R&A cap will be so vigorously opposed by the manufacturers as to make it nearly impossible to imagine. I think the only remaining hope in keeping classic venues in play for professionals is Augusta. If they were to mandate their own specs for the golf ball and require manufacturers to meet these specs for the Masters, perhaps change would be possible. Augusta is a private club, not an organization governing the entire sport, and also has a war chest the likes of which can only be imagined. Don't want to use their ball? Don't play. Other sports use standardized equipment that amateurs are not required to use. But then I am an eternal optimist.
-
A wee dispute between on the one hand the public-safety/environmental/golf-haters/rollback lobby and on the other hand the golf equipment manufacturers would be an interesting time to be a fly on the wall.
Generally speaking if you don’t get your own house in order someone else will come along and put it in order for you and you might not necessarily like the outcome they impose.
Fingers crossed.
Atb
-
So Mark, how are the manufacturers going to oppose a roll back?
Patents on the technology that enabled the excessive distance have expired so they can't claim lose of revenue due to protected technology. They aren't suing Vice or other companies that have sprung up to take advantage of the patent lapses.
-
Interesting comment. I just remember the sturm und drang when Ping challenged the changes to the grooves and assumed that since money is always the answer, the manufacturers would find a way to make any change mandated by the USGA/R&A some kind of restraint of trade issue at the federal level. If this isn't true, then why have the ruling bodies for the game refused to take any kind of meaningful stand as the professional game becomes completely detached from the game played by amateurs?
-
I'd urge all of you to put the Ping lawsuit in a special, separate category, rather than conflating it with golf balls and spring-like COR rules and the like. If you read Karsten Solhiem's side of that case, you get a VERY different impression of what happened. Ping's position, I think, was that the groove rule was changed specifically to hurt Ping in the marketplace, rather than having anything whatsoever to do with performance, AND that the USGA measurement was bad engineering, which is what REALLY ticked Karsten off.
And, in fact, when Mickelson had one of his crazy moments and brought his Eye2 lob wedge out of mothballs, testing at the time showed that it created LESS spin that current conforming wedges. That groove change was meant to do one thing; hurt Ping's sales, not "protect the game".
-
AG, reading one side's arguments in a lawsuit is a dangerous way to draw conclusions. I am very well acquainted with a prominent lawyer who did work for the USGA in areas regarding equipment, amateur status and the like. When I reviewed the pleadings I concluded that the settlement was reached to avoid the expense of the litigation as, at the time, the USGA had not created a "war chest" funded by the TV money which came later. We'll never know what the outcome of a trial would have been but I thought the USGA had the better chance and I am no great fan of the USGA. Notwithstanding the current war chest, they appear to lack the intestinal fortitude to take on the industry.
-
AG, reading one side's arguments in a lawsuit is a dangerous way to draw conclusions. I am very well acquainted with a prominent lawyer who did work for the USGA in areas regarding equipment, amateur status and the like. When I reviewed the pleadings I concluded that the settlement was reached to avoid the expense of the litigation as, at the time, the USGA had not created a "war chest" funded by the TV money which came later. We'll never know what the outcome of a trial would have been but I thought the USGA had the better chance and I am no great fan of the USGA. Notwithstanding the current war chest, they appear to lack the intestinal fortitude to take on the industry.
You are, of course, 100% correct that reading one side of ANY argument, much less a court case, isn't a good idea; I could have phrased that a lot better.
My point was that what the lawsuit was about to Karsten Solheim, and what the lawsuit was about to the USGA, were very different things. I think Karsten was a better engineer than the ones who "revised" the rule for the USGA; he knew, they knew it, and the settlement was because eventually the courts would have known it.
-
AG, I guess that is where we disagree. The case was about a lot more than Karsten's interpretation of the engineering that went into a rule. But we'll never know.
-
Mr Manufacturers CEO to a Senior Employee - "How much will it cost us to fight a legal case against rolling back golf clubs and balls and what are our chances of winning the case?"
Senior Employee - "Zillions $£ and slim."
CEO - "How much will it cost us to have our clever scientists and production guys tweak the ball so it doesn't go so far and how long will it take?"
Senior Employee - "Peanuts and not very long."
CEO - "Well lets continue doing nothing and see if the gutless wimps at the USGA and the R&A are smart enough to realise this and have the strength of character to do something about it!"
:) :) :)
atb
-
To the question of why the ruling bodies haven't forced a roll-back; is it not as simple as 99+% of the players in the game would not be helped and the small percentage (~0.5%?) of courses used for professional tournament play that modify their courses for that end do so willingly?
-
100% of the players would be helped if they shorten courses but don't narrow them.
-
100% of the players would be helped if they shorten courses but don't narrow them.
I hate holes where driver is taken out of play. It’s the straightest club in my bag. So no, I’m one guy hurt by shorter courses.
-
100% of the players would be helped if they shorten courses but don't narrow them.
Ok...do it tomorrow.
What does the USGA have to do with that?
-
100% of the players would be helped if they shorten courses but don't narrow them.
I hate holes where driver is taken out of play. It’s the straightest club in my bag. So no, I’m one guy hurt by shorter courses.
Glad to see you are still slinging your usual line of BS.
If driver is the straightest club in your bag, then maybe you should take two weeks off, and then give up golf altogether.
And, perhaps try the same thing here with posting.
-
I can't be the only golfer in the world that hates the 4 iron play safe off the tee option. The lower the club the more the spin. The more the spin the greater the sideways. The bigger the sideways the higher the score.
-
I can't be the only golfer in the world that hates the 4 iron play safe off the tee option. The lower the club the more the spin. The more the spin the greater the sideways. The bigger the sideways the higher the score.
More BS, and actually the opposite of the truth.
Take a break Barney!
-
100% of the players would be helped if they shorten courses but don't narrow them.
I hate holes where driver is taken out of play. It’s the straightest club in my bag. So no, I’m one guy hurt by shorter courses.
Sounds like we need to play a money match on a short course with lots of tree-lined doglegs!! ;-)
-
Sounds great! Sad thing is that is exactly the opposite of what Garland wants.
-
Sounds great! Sad thing is that is exactly the opposite of what Garland wants.
I am happy to see David fleece you in a money match on a short course with lots of tree-lined doglegs!! ;-)
-
So Bryson wins last night with I believe an average tee shot over 350 yds and average second shot on par-4’s of approx 105 yds.
Fair play to him personally for the time and effort he’s put in to take his game to this position but .... jeez, what does this do for the game going forward?
The R&A and the USGA published their Distance Report quite a while ago now, and yes Covid has probably taken their eyes off the ball, but they need to act and act quickly. The game is surely more important than the manufacturers.
Atb
-
I think reducing it to a distance issue is too one dimensional. It should be about maximising the skill required to separate oneself from the competition. I think it would be more helpful to think about driver head size and spin rate of the ball and slightly out of the box ideas like always banning teeing the ball up.
-
Props to Bryson for improving himself and utilizing the tools available. Has technology allowed obscene distances? Yes. Are courses obsolete? Yes. Is Bryson a great athlete that could hang in the NFL or NBA? No. Just wait because there are LeBron level athletes that will be in golf in the near future. There's too much money available. You haven't seen anything yet in regards to distance.
-
... I think it would be more helpful to think about driver head size and spin rate of the ball ...
Limit to two piece ball, and allow variance in the softness of the cover.
-
Props to Bryson for improving himself and utilizing the tools available. Has technology allowed obscene distances? Yes. Are courses obsolete? Yes. Is Bryson a great athlete that could hang in the NFL or NBA? No. Just wait because there are LeBron level athletes that will be in golf in the near future. There's too much money available. You haven't seen anything yet in regards to distance.
Looks like more trips to the soccer field for uncoordinated kids bourne from uncoordinated excuse laden parents. DCB looks to have outworked everyone this off-season. Honestly, given the world wide crisis his recent stretch of golf is hardly memorable.
-
Your child doesn’t need a LeBron bod or be Musk odd to be one of the greatest people in the world. Let’s not start defining golfers by body type.
-
JK,
Not one to coddle, my dad shot my athletic dreams down early, first by pointing out that if my little league team went far enough in the state tournament, we would almost certainly run into some team that was better. When it turned to golf, we went to the Western Open one hear and he noted how much thicker the arms of Arnie, Jack, Tom, etc. were than my bony little arms. And, how big their hands were compared to my very average size hands. Basically, there is some limit to the positive "I think I can, I think I can" attitude. Positive attitude and non athletic bod, no go. But, BAD is a great example for kids who need to understand how much work it takes. All those Disney movies shoot straight to the happy ending, cheering crowds, etc., sort of downplaying all the behind the scenes work it takes to be successful.
As to what it means for golf, these protests against the top 1% of distance sort of miss the point. There are probably already enough 7600 yard courses out there that could be expanded to 8K, and have the infrastructure to hold tournaments. If not, someone will be glad to build them. The only losers are traditional clubs that still want to hold tourneys. I think the USGA and PGA Tour have long wanted to move away from the course rental mode anyway. ::)
So, we build maybe a dozen courses and let the rest of them alone until someone gets really bored with 340 yard drives. The tour average is still 294, BTW (and median, which sometimes can be a bit different) at least in 2019. I haven't checked the limited data for this year. Or, amend the rules to tax the rich and make him wear ankle weights or something else to slow him down. Even if he drives it as far, maybe the two stroke penalties for slow play will even the field.
-
I don't think the Country Club of Detroit got a damn thing out of hosting this tournament. I don't doubt that 80% of all members of these old established classic clubs would be thrilled to let the hassle of professional golf pass them by. The only reason more people don't speak up is because it's tough to do without looking like a dick. Something I know a little something about.
I do hope those non social distancing bags of wind that were cozying up to the tees from their homes this weekend are banned from their workplaces for 14 days.
-
It's not about Bryson DeChambeau personally, he's the poster boy.
It's about the future of golf should the trends that have been ongoing for quite some years now and have been highlighted and magnified by Brysons performances over the last couple of weeks be allowed to continue.
It's about the long term consequences to the game if restrictions are not appropriately applied and applied soon.
It's about a game that uses relatively large amounts of land and water on a finite size planet with limited resources and an ever increasing population.
It's about nearby public and other player safety.
It's about the time it takes to play.
And at the elite professional level it's about entertainment (vrs boredom).
atb
-
Thomas,
Like I said, if 99%+ of courses would design for their players (almost certainly in the lower 99% of drive lengths) all of that is taken care of. The problem is, for decades the golf press judged courses by their potential for championship status. The every day course needs to be no more than 6,800 yards to challenge all but that 1% of top length players (which starts at about 280 yards, BTW)
-
I would not submit the tournament this week as boring.
-
I will even submit that every major won by a short hitter has been more boring than those won by long hitters. Tiger and Jack's 32 to start. The recent run by Jordan Spieth was the greatest most boring run in major golf.
-
Yeah, but Rocco coming close in 2008 at Torey was pretty memorable!
-
John, we are all entitled to our opinions. As far as I'm concerned it was boring, laughably boring. Snooze fest time.
Jeff, ignoring the elite pro game, what about the 15-40 yr old amateur guys and some gals who bomb it and as the years progress those coming after them will bomb it even further?
atb
-
It's not about Bryson DeChambeau personally, he's the poster boy.
It's about the future of golf should the trends that have been ongoing for quite some years now and have been highlighted and magnified by Brysons performances over the last couple of weeks be allowed to continue.
It's about the long term consequences to the game if restrictions are not appropriately applied and applied soon.
It's about a game that uses relatively large amounts of land and water on a finite size planet with limited resources and an ever increasing population.
It's about nearby public and other player safety.
It's about the time it takes to play.
And at the elite professional level it's about entertainment (vrs boredom).
atb
This gets to the deeper issue in my opinion. Professional golf grew naturally out of the game played on the links of Scotland. The best players were those that could play lots of different shots. They were masters of the entire game. Golf course design has always been deeply influenced by those original playing grounds, with their funny bumps, gravity-well bunkers, and often unforgiving greens. The game played buy the pros has changed over the last fifty years; there are essentially no hazards since the goal is to hit the ball over everything, and land anywhere it isn't blocked. Take Bryson's 8 iron from the rough on 17 in the final round, just 231 to the pin for an easy 2 putt birdie. Is it magical? Sure. Is it amazing? Yes. But is it golf in any way that the average, or scratch, golfer can recognize? No. The new "championship" courses could feature 600 yard par 4 holes with 300 yards of trees and no fairway. Maybe 400 yards. Then a green. Who needs bump and run shots, shaped shots for position, fairways with complex contours?
Boring.
-
I think the real problem here is the monkey see, monkey do nonsense from weekend hacks.
Swinging out of their shoes on every shot, hitting balls way off line and adding a ton of extra time per player per round looking for all those wayward shots...
-
I think the real problem here is the monkey see, monkey do nonsense from weekend hacks.
Swinging out of their shoes on every shot, hitting balls way off line and adding a ton of extra time per player per round looking for all those wayward shots...
Stop. I've been hitting drives as far as I can for over 50 years. I even went so far as to put balls on top of a pencil.
This is not new!!! This is not boring!!!
-
Barney,
Its my understanding you've been a single digit capper for most of your golfing life.
I'm not talking about the minority of players who know how to golf their ball reasonably well.
-
Then explain why Seve hit more drives further off line than any great golfer today.
-
Then explain why Seve hit more drives further off line than any great golfer today.
Well Seve was more than a one in a million. He was a a once in a lifetime.
Once again, not talking about the few exceptions, much less a super exception like Seve...
-
Then explain why Seve hit more drives further off line than any great golfer today.
Well Seve was more than a one in a million. He was a a once in a lifetime.
Once again, not talking about the few exceptions, much less a super exception like Seve...
I haven't hit the ball in the middle of a highway for years. Current drivers just don't spin the ball enough. The ball is going further but it is also straighter.
My only real argument is that the long ball is not boring.
-
My only real argument is that the long ball is not boring.
.... but the 2nd shots that follow a long drive by an elite player usually are!
:)
atb
-
Fair enough Barney,
I won't disagree that the long ball is not boring, chicks will always dig it. But they got competitions just for that too, with chicks to boot, and they're on TV a lot more now.
But I'd much rather see players carving a 4 iron around a tree to 5 feet than yet another bomb and gouge, wedge fest.. hole after hole. All that long iron mastery from Jack and Tiger, those were the actual shots that people remembered, even if they tuned in to watch em eviscerate the field in the process too. And yes as much as I'm not a Spieth fan, he is a wizard with the flat stick, and has made some incredibly sick putts in his career.
At the end of the day, it should be about balance and requiring players to have all the shots... and the pro game is lacking it in bunches right now. Bryson could have only carried 6 clubs in his bag and still easily won. (Driver, 5 iron, 8 iron, two wedges, and a putter)
-
I think the real problem here is the monkey see, monkey do nonsense from weekend hacks.
Swinging out of their shoes on every shot, hitting balls way off line and adding a ton of extra time per player per round looking for all those wayward shots...
Stop. I've been hitting drives as far as I can for over 50 years. I even went so far as to put balls on top of a pencil.
This is not new!!! This is not boring!!!
Agree 100%. Guys have been taking absolute, near 100% rips at the ball since the dawn of the game, and anyone who thinks Nicklaus, et al. didn't swing absolutely as hard as he could at driver several times a round is just kidding themselves, cherry-picked quotes to the contrary, notwithstanding. All you have to do is watch video of him, in tournaments, to see him crushing the ball with all his might to know he frequently "let it all hang out," as it were.
The thing is, modern statistical analysis has simply confirmed that Jack (and everyone else) all along, should have been doing this on far more holes than he did -- because it would have benefitted him in the long run! In other words, he would have played the same way Bryson does now, had he known it was, statistically and empirically, the best way to play the game if low score is the goal.
And I agree with you, John, it's most certainly not boring for me to watch, whatsoever. It's also not at all boring to watch -- if you see it in person. Playing with a "mini-bomber" like Rickie Fowler and watching him hit a 5-wood from 255, uphill, into a wind and onto a firm green, landing it 50 feet short and seeing it roll to 8-feet for eagle, all the while looking like he's hitting it within the launch window of what you would expect from a damn pitching wedge is not boring. It's ... awe-inspiring.
-
Kalen,
So you like trees now?
-
Kalen,
So you like trees now?
Yes Barney.
All of them! ;D
-
Wow. Talk about crushing the ball! Here's Nicklaus at the Open Championship at St. Andrews...
https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM
-
Wow. Talk about crushing the ball! Here's Nicklaus at the Open Championship at St. Andrews...
https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM (https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM)
Not a good example ....... note from the flagstick that the hole was playing straight downwind. Also watch the amount of wind blown movement in the spectators clothing and listen to the recording and you'll realise how strongly the wind was blowing when the shot was hit.
atb
PS - worth adding that Doug Sanders play-off tee shot finished only a few feet short of the green.
-
DeChambeau's very boring performance warranted a breakdown from FiveThirtyEight today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bryson-dechambeaus-power-boost-is-off-the-charts/ (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bryson-dechambeaus-power-boost-is-off-the-charts/)
-
Wow. Talk about crushing the ball! Here's Nicklaus at the Open Championship at St. Andrews...
https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM (https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM)
Not a good example ....... note from the flagstick that the hole was playing straight downwind. Also watch the amount of wind blown movement in the spectators clothing and listen to the recording and you'll realise how strongly the wind was blowing when the shot was hit.
atb
PS - worth adding that Doug Sanders play-off tee shot finished only a few feet short of the green.
What's your point? That Bryson's advantage over the field is only about as big as Jack's was over Doug Sanders back in the day?
How will we know when this problem has been fixed? How far should Bryson be able to hit it? And how far should the average Tour player be able to hit it?
-
It seems to me the U.S. Open usually illuminates how to deal with these matters.
Turn off the water.
-
Then explain why Seve hit more drives further off line than any great golfer today.
Well Seve was more than a one in a million. He was a a once in a lifetime. ...
Wrong answer Kalen. The correct answer is spin.
-
..., and anyone who thinks Nicklaus, et al. didn't swing absolutely as hard as he could at driver several times a round is just kidding themselves, ...
So Jack was either a liar or delusional. The way he talked and wrote about it certainly conflicts with what you write.
-
Wow. Talk about crushing the ball! Here's Nicklaus at the Open Championship at St. Andrews...
https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM
Down wind in a very strong tail wind on links fescue. Bobby Jones could have done that with hickory.
-
Wow. Talk about crushing the ball! Here's Nicklaus at the Open Championship at St. Andrews...
https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM (https://youtu.be/pPicaKToelM)
Not a good example ....... note from the flagstick that the hole was playing straight downwind. Also watch the amount of wind blown movement in the spectators clothing and listen to the recording and you'll realise how strongly the wind was blowing when the shot was hit.
atb
PS - worth adding that Doug Sanders play-off tee shot finished only a few feet short of the green.
And, Doug did that without a backswing.
-
..., and anyone who thinks Nicklaus, et al. didn't swing absolutely as hard as he could at driver several times a round is just kidding themselves, ...
So Jack was either a liar or delusional. The way he talked and wrote about it certainly conflicts with what you write.
Jack was/is frequently delusional about his own game ("I never 3-putted the 72nd hole of a major championship") -- as many greats are/have been. That example of Jack hitting it well over the green (probably another 20 - 30 yards if the junk over the green doesn't stop it) took me all of 30 seconds to find. There are many more – especially from his younger days. He absolutely ripped at it when he felt the situation called for it, Garland. As did Player, Palmer, et al.
-
..., and anyone who thinks Nicklaus, et al. didn't swing absolutely as hard as he could at driver several times a round is just kidding themselves, ...
So Jack was either a liar or delusional. The way he talked and wrote about it certainly conflicts with what you write.
Jack was/is frequently delusional about his own game ("I never 3-putted the 72nd hole of a major championship") -- as many greats are/have been. That example of Jack hitting it well over the green (probably another 20 - 30 yards if the junk over the green doesn't stop it) took me all of 30 seconds to find. There are many more – especially from his younger days. He absolutely ripped at it when he felt the situation called for it, Garland. As did Player, Palmer, et al.
It’s not delusional. Great champions have selective memories. It’s by design. It’s one of the traits that makes them great.
-
..., and anyone who thinks Nicklaus, et al. didn't swing absolutely as hard as he could at driver several times a round is just kidding themselves, ...
So Jack was either a liar or delusional. The way he talked and wrote about it certainly conflicts with what you write.
J[size=78%]ack was/is frequently delusional about his own game ("I never 3-putted the 72nd hole of a major championship") -- as many greats are/have been. That example of Jack hitting it well over the green (probably another 20 - 30 yards if the junk over the green doesn't stop it) took me all of 30 seconds to find. There are many more – especially from his younger days. He absolutely ripped at it when he felt the situation called for it, Garland. As did Player, Palmer, et al.[/size]
It’s not delusional. Great champions have selective memories. It’s by design. It’s one of the traits that makes them great.
Agreed. Delusional is not the right word, it's just the one that Garland used. :-)
They all ripped at it back then -- when they thought the situation/hole called for it.
Here's Johnny Miller: https://youtu.be/hSsl4qeauDU?t=600
Here's Tommy Horton ripping at one: https://youtu.be/hSsl4qeauDU?t=1286
And Jack again: https://youtu.be/hSsl4qeauDU?t=1977
Watson ripping one:https://youtu.be/_ojtX1GrIcc?t=1794
Jack crushing one, leaving nothing in the bag: https://youtu.be/_ojtX1GrIcc?t=1794
Johnny Miller definitely NOT going gentle into that good night: https://youtu.be/_ojtX1GrIcc?t=1794
[/size]Another one of Miller attacking the ball with a driver: [size=78%]https://youtu.be/_ojtX1GrIcc?t=1794
It's just not debatable to me that the best pros of every era have swung very hard at the driver when they deemed the situation/shot called for it.
-
It's just not debatable to me that the best pros of every era have swung very hard at the driver when they deemed the situation/shot called for it.
So how often did they deem the situation called for it? All day Thursday?
What percentage of the time did swinging "very hard" work out for players "back in the day" before modern equipment vs. current players swinging "very hard"?
How come players on the junior tour have their driving averages drop when they make the big tour? How come said players say they dial it back to score well enough to compete on the big tour? How come Ben Hogan generally won driving distance contests, but seldom drove it as far as his opponents in tournaments?
-
And, does having a chance to play Oakmont define a situation where it is deemed necessary to swing "very hard"? ;)
-
Johnny Miller definitely NOT going gentle into that good night: https://youtu.be/_ojtX1GrIcc?t=1794 (https://youtu.be/_ojtX1GrIcc?t=1794)
Thanks for highlighting this one. A very exciting Major. Very re-watchable. Such a variety of shots played and clubs used to play them.
Note at 1:08:45 Johnny Miller, after hitting a long rolling drive, using a fairway wood (with a wooden head and steel shaft) for his downhill second shot on the 15th at ANGC.
Kind of shows the 'progress-distance' quandary rather nicely.
I wonder when was the last time Bryson hit a fairway wood (now metal with a graphite shaft) for his second shot on any hole and how long the hole was to accommodate him hitting two shots ... 650-700 yds? That's a lot of land. Not a criticism of Bryson himself though, but when others, including youngsters not yet fully grown, start copying his gym work, protein diet and the like, well 650-700 yds won't be sufficient for two shots.
As to the famous Nicklaus tee shot on the 18th at TOC in the play-off against Doug Sanders, it's worth noting that Nicklaus's shot was most likely played with the 1:62" ball, which has always been acknowledged as being longer than the 1:68".
Curious how when the 1:62" was removed from use in The Open in the mid-1970's and removed from play generally circa 1990 the manufacturers didn't moan and hint at lawsuits, they just got on with producing 1:68"'s. And how the players of the time, amateurs and elites alike, didn't moan about losing distance, they just got on with playing.
atb
PS - this is worth a listen - Geoff Shackelford - [size=78%]https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-18-is-brysons-style-of-golf-unsettling/id1506821154?i=1000483074764 (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-18-is-brysons-style-of-golf-unsettling/id1506821154?i=1000483074764)[/size]
-
It's just not debatable to me that the best pros of every era have swung very hard at the driver when they deemed the situation/shot called for it.
So how often did they deem the situation called for it? All day Thursday?
What percentage of the time did swinging "very hard" work out for players "back in the day" before modern equipment vs. current players swinging "very hard"?
How come players on the junior tour have their driving averages drop when they make the big tour? How come said players say they dial it back to score well enough to compete on the big tour? How come Ben Hogan generally won driving distance contests, but seldom drove it as far as his opponents in tournaments?
"Back in the day" Nicklaus famously only played well enough at the start of every tournament to be near the lead on Sunday. The lack of competition in his time did not require him to play "balls out". With all the great players who can win every week now you just can't be that cautious.
-
David,
I'm pretty sure if you comb over the tens of thousands of swings by any professional golfer, you can find plenty of times when they took a big lash at the ball depending on the circumstances.
The question is does that reflect how they swung most of the time?
-
David,
I'm pretty sure if you comb over the tens of thousands of swings by any professional golfer, you can find plenty of times when they took a big lash at the ball depending on the circumstances.
The question is does that reflect how they swung most of the time?
Kalen,
The strategy of modern tournament golf has changed as much as the equipment.
-
David,
I'm pretty sure if you comb over the tens of thousands of swings by any professional golfer, you can find plenty of times when they took a big lash at the ball depending on the circumstances.
The question is does that reflect how they swung most of the time?
Kalen,
The strategy of modern tournament golf has changed as much as the equipment.
Agreed John,
This has enabled guys like Bryson to take full rips on nearly every shot.
My previous point was in response to David claiming that pros have been taking rips at the ball since the dawn of the game. And while that may be true, its nowhere near the same % of time because the crooked balls and "inferior" equipment would bite you in the ass....Seve being the one lone exception.
Its also why big swingers like Bubba and Phil have had lots of success as well.
-
But you and others have said the modern ball and big swings put people in danger because they go so far off line.
-
But you and others have said the modern ball and big swings put people in danger because they go so far off line.
Barney,
I don't recall saying it's more dangerous per se. Yes, attending a pro tournament by default always carry some risk of being hit by a ball, but that will always be the case.
My concern is the average weekend double digit Joe hitting more wayward balls or topped balls, by taking big swipes, which in turn leads to even slower rounds due to more shot attempts and looking for said balls.
-
The USGA can not regulate stupid. That’s why handicaps never go down no matter how great the equipment may be.
-
The USGA can not regulate stupid. That’s why handicaps never go down no matter how great the equipment may be.
Having trouble getting your handicap to go down with the latest equipment?
;)
Just seems to me that practice is the factor instead of intelligence. And, others on this site report that handicaps have gone down. My top two candidates for handicaps going down. Successful golfers staying with the game longer than less successful golfers. And, a ball that spins less off of the longer clubs cuts down on undesirable in flight curvature.
-
I’m a +1 from the tees I should be playing. The ball doesn’t move people!!!
-
And, does having a chance to play Oakmont define a situation where it is deemed necessary to swing "very hard"? ;)
Sadly, I have to swing "very hard" almost every time I pull out driver on virtually any course nowadays in order to shoot around or below the course rating. I carry driver about 225 to 230 with runout, depending on conditions, to only about 245 to 255. I've routinely outdriven by 40 to 80 yards by my fellow competitors. I have a qualifier on Thursday for the SCGA Amateur, and I think I've drawn two college kids. Will likely bet 60 to 100 behind them on the par 5's and long par 4's, Garland. Ouch.
-
I’m a +1 from the tees I should be playing. The ball doesn’t move people!!!
David's index is +1. You still want a money game with him? ;)
-
And, does having a chance to play Oakmont define a situation where it is deemed necessary to swing "very hard"? ;)
Sadly, I have to swing "very hard" almost every time I pull out driver on virtually any course nowadays in order to shoot around or below the course rating. I carry driver about 225 to 230 with runout, depending on conditions, to only about 245 to 255. I've routinely outdriven by 40 to 80 yards by my fellow competitors. I have a qualifier on Thursday for the SCGA Amateur, and I think I've drawn two college kids. Will likely bet 60 to 100 behind them on the par 5's and long par 4's, Garland. Ouch.
David, It's great you are still out there competing. I've retired to senior events and my club championship where I have to go up against a long hitting legit plus 4. That should be fun................
-
I’m a +1 from the tees I should be playing. The ball doesn’t move people!!!
David's index is +1. You still want a money game with him? ;)
Anytime a guy can beat me straight up it is worth the price of admission. I’ve never been beat by someone who hits it even shorter than me. Time and place baby. Time and place.
-
To those of you bashing his play as one dimensional bomb and gouge with no creativity; did you watch Sunday?
He hit a bunker shot from over the fifth green that would be Mickelsons best of the year.
On the next hole he hit a short running draw from under a tree on the left to about 12 feet. This would have made Seve proud.
His drive and wedge on the last were for the win and we’re both absolutely top class shots.
I’m no fan of his antics, but he is far from the monotonous player implied here.
-
It's just not debatable to me that the best pros of every era have swung very hard at the driver when they deemed the situation/shot called for it.
So how often did they deem the situation called for it? All day Thursday?
What percentage of the time did swinging "very hard" work out for players "back in the day" before modern equipment vs. current players swinging "very hard"?
How come players on the junior tour have their driving averages drop when they make the big tour? How come said players say they dial it back to score well enough to compete on the big tour? How come Ben Hogan generally won driving distance contests, but seldom drove it as far as his opponents in tournaments?
Not sure where we are on this topic. Modern equipment and the modern ball has definitely has allowed players to swing at/near 100% effort more often. No doubt. That is not in dispute from me. I was merely pointing out that players have always swung aggressively at driver. I think I proved that with those videos.
What modern statistical analysis has taught us, though, is that you are generally better off crushing it and finding it and hitting the next one than you are smoothing it along "skillfully" or "artfully" or whatever you want to call it. The art/finesse of golf still happens on the approach (watch Tiger hit irons, to this day, if you want to see a master class in how to control your golf ball), around the greens, and on the greens. But the tee ball should be ripped whenever possible. Closer equals better. Always has. It's just that it's hard to change people's long-held beliefs about things they care about.
For most long to very long expert players, if there's about 40 yards of distance between danger zones and the rough is manageable, you are almost always better off crushing driver and dealing with the consequences than "laying up" or "playing safe." There are, of course, exceptions, and the thicker the rough, the less easy that decision is. And there are always plenty of holes where the is NOT 40 yards of distance between danger zones, so even players who "get" this new system will play plenty of holes over a season where driver is definitely not the play and they will hit 3-wood or 2-iron/hybrid.
And while "angles" into certain pin positions on certain greens do play some role in decision making, modern equipment is such that virtually no pin is inaccessible to expert players with a sharp-grooved, low-bounce 60* - 64* wedge. More importantly, if you just always hit driver on a hole where an angle does help you access a certain pin, you will still score lower, on average, than by "chasing the correct angle" to the green. It's (virtually always) simply better to be 105 yards with a crappy angle than it is to be 142 yards with a perfect angle. And keep in mind that a good percentage of the time, you will be 105 with a good or perfect angle! also, there's no guarantee, that by chasing the correct angle into a green, that you will pull it off in the first place! Sometimes you will be 142 and with a mediocre or bad angle when you could be 102 with a mediocre or bad angle. That's what makes "sending it" (the new term, LOL) the way to (generally) score your best.
I just wish more courses were set up so that you could only send it on maybe 9 or 10 of the driving holes. Too many courses they play on tour allow the long guys to hit 95% driver on too many holes. I don't like that either!
Playing aggressively off the tee simply lowers expert golfers' average scores. If they're off with the driver one week, big deal. Most now know that, on most holes, hitting it far trumps playing "safely," over time.
Much more to say on this topic. But I'm not really sure what the exact topic is... LOL
-
And, does having a chance to play Oakmont define a situation where it is deemed necessary to swing "very hard"? ;)
Sadly, I have to swing "very hard" almost every time I pull out driver on virtually any course nowadays in order to shoot around or below the course rating. I carry driver about 225 to 230 with runout, depending on conditions, to only about 245 to 255. I've routinely outdriven by 40 to 80 yards by my fellow competitors. I have a qualifier on Thursday for the SCGA Amateur, and I think I've drawn two college kids. Will likely bet 60 to 100 behind them on the par 5's and long par 4's, Garland. Ouch.
David, It's great you are still out there competing. I've retired to senior events and my club championship where I have to go up against a long hitting legit plus 4. That should be fun................
Our club's 9-time club champ (9 of the last 10 years!) is a +3 and he hits it 50 to 70 past me. Every driver hole.
Last year, though, in my first year at the club, I managed to beat him in our match-play, gross club championship in 20 holes. Definitely one of my prouder golf moments. He got me later in the year in our 54-hole stroke-play club championship, though, so we're even in championships won during my (brief) tenure there. :-)
-
I’m a +1 from the tees I should be playing. The ball doesn’t move people!!!
David's index is +1. You still want a money game with him? ;)
Anytime a guy can beat me straight up it is worth the price of admission. I’ve never been beat by someone who hits it even shorter than me. Time and place baby. Time and place.
Where do you live, John? New York, was it? I'm considering playing in the J.R. Williams Invitational at Oak Hill. Maybe we can hook up for a match if my partner and I get it and I travel out there. Would be a blast!
-
To those of you bashing his play as one dimensional bomb and gouge with no creativity; did you watch Sunday?
He hit a bunker shot from over the fifth green that would be Mickelsons best of the year.
On the next hole he hit a short running draw from under a tree on the left to about 12 feet. This would have made Seve proud.
His drive and wedge on the last were for the win and we’re both absolutely top class shots.
I’m no fan of his antics, but he is far from the monotonous player implied here.
Amen, Jim. The "art" of the game is on the approach, recovery, short-game, and putting. Driving is about crushing it. Sadly, for me, "crushing it" is all of 245 yards!! :'(
-
David,
I’m in Orlando. Everyone eventually ends up here someday.
-
David,
I’m in Orlando. Everyone eventually ends up here someday.
Orlando? Rochester? What's the difference? Isn't everywhere on the east coast an hour or so away?
-
...
What modern statistical analysis has taught us, though, is that you are generally better off crushing it and finding it and hitting the next one than you are smoothing it along "skillfully" or "artfully" or whatever you want to call it. The art/finesse of golf still happens on the approach (watch Tiger hit irons, to this day, if you want to see a master class in how to control your golf ball), around the greens, and on the greens. But the tee ball should be ripped whenever possible. Closer equals better. Always has. It's just that it's hard to change people's long-held beliefs about things they care about.
...
Unfortunately, modern statistical analysis has always worked off of data from using the modern ball. (Assuming you are referring to Broadie.)
Sam Snead may have been the original bomb and gouger. Unfortunately, his attempts to bomb and gouge suffered severely when he got into spells of curving the ball uncontrollably. Ben Hogan never got his career off the ground until he managed to dial it back enough to control the curving ball. I think if Broadie had been doing his golf stats 50 to 60 years ago, you would not be singing praises of going all out, as I believe he would have been finding much different results.
How do you explain PGA Tour driving stats?
1986 261.58 Davis Love III 285.7
1985 260.18 Andy Bean 278.2
1984 259.61 Bill Glasson 276.5
1983 258.65 John McComish 277.4
1982 256.89 Bill Calfee 275.3
1981 259.66 Dan Pohl 280.1
1980 256.89 Dan Pohl 274.3
In the early 70s, when I was a highly conditioned athlete with forearms of steel from working summers in a sawmill, I was carrying it farther in the air than the longest PGA pros were averaging on tour in the early 80s. Don't tell me they were going after it 100% nearly all the time.
Getting back to Sam Snead. He could regularly drive it over 300 yards. However, he couldn't control the ball in use back then to do that on tour. The very first drive he hit in bounds at his very first PGA Tour event practice went something like 330 yards. This was after hitting his first OB, having two members of the foursome head off down the fairway, while one hung back and encouraged him to relax and try again. After also sending his second one OB, as I recall it was his third one that blew well over the players in the fairway and ended on the green to their shock and amazement.
-
...
What modern statistical analysis has taught us, though, is that you are generally better off crushing it and finding it and hitting the next one than you are smoothing it along "skillfully" or "artfully" or whatever you want to call it. The art/finesse of golf still happens on the approach (watch Tiger hit irons, to this day, if you want to see a master class in how to control your golf ball), around the greens, and on the greens. But the tee ball should be ripped whenever possible. Closer equals better. Always has. It's just that it's hard to change people's long-held beliefs about things they care about.
...
Unfortunately, modern statistical analysis has always worked off of data from using the modern ball. (Assuming you are referring to Broadie.)
Sam Snead may have been the original bomb and gouger. Unfortunately, his attempts to bomb and gouge suffered severely when he got into spells of curving the ball uncontrollably. Ben Hogan never got his career off the ground until he managed to dial it back enough to control the curving ball. I think if Broadie had been doing his golf stats 50 to 60 years ago, you would not be singing praises of going all out, as I believe he would have been finding much different results.
How do you explain PGA Tour driving stats?
1986 261.58 Davis Love III 285.7
1985 260.18 Andy Bean 278.2
1984 259.61 Bill Glasson 276.5
1983 258.65 John McComish 277.4
1982 256.89 Bill Calfee 275.3
1981 259.66 Dan Pohl 280.1
1980 256.89 Dan Pohl 274.3
In the early 70s, when I was a highly conditioned athlete with forearms of steel from working summers in a sawmill, I was carrying it farther in the air than the longest PGA pros were averaging on tour in the early 80s. Don't tell me they were going after it 100% nearly all the time.
Getting back to Sam Snead. He could regularly drive it over 300 yards. However, he couldn't control the ball in use back then to do that on tour. The very first drive he hit in bounds at his very first PGA Tour event practice went something like 330 yards. This was after hitting his first OB, having two members of the foursome head off down the fairway, while one hung back and encouraged him to relax and try again. After also sending his second one OB, as I recall it was his third one that blew well over the players in the fairway and ended on the green to their shock and amazement.
I really don't think we're disagreeing on much, if anything, Garland. I never said old pros always ripped at it. I said they definitely did sometimes, and that was in response to someone else's post, I believe.
-
David,
So your buying that a double digit handicap in the 70’s carried the ball further than the best pro’s would a decade later?
-
David,
So your buying that a double digit handicap in the 70’s carried the ball further than the best pro’s would a decade later?
I thought he was joking ....
Garland?
I mean, I did know a 4-capper who regularly carried it 300 - 310+ in 1990, but that's different...
-
David,
So your buying that a double digit handicap in the 70’s carried the ball further than the best pro’s would a decade later?
Mickey Mantle was a double digit in the 60s, and he could do it with a 3 wood. It has nothing to do with handicap. Everything to do with strength, which brings us back to Bryson De. I was hitting TopFlites in the 70s, which gave me the low spin advantage the modern pros are exploiting.
-
David,
So your buying that a double digit handicap in the 70’s carried the ball further than the best pro’s would a decade later?
I thought he was joking ....
Garland?
I mean, I did know a 4-capper who regularly carried it 300 - 310+ in 1990, but that's different...
David,
Maybe you should take a job in a sawmill, and spend 8 hours a day lifting heavy chunks of wood. It might would help your driving distance.
-
According to Every Shot Counts book, Tiger dominated because of his approach shots were so much better.
However, I think the great players always have another gear to pipe one when needed.
-
David,
So your buying that a double digit handicap in the 70’s carried the ball further than the best pro’s would a decade later?
Well, Garland is a mountain of a man; I'd say 6'5". The levers are there. If he were leaned out back in the day I could see serious distance.
-
Power to all fields as they say
-
Back with 70's technology Garland could have been fresh off an alien anal probe and still not be carrying his drives further than the best pros of the future. It is pure science fiction.
We will never be able to have a serious discussion on distance until amateurs come to grip with how far they actually hit the ball.
-
Back with 70's technology Garland could have been fresh off an alien anal probe and still not be carrying his drives further than the best pros of the future. It is pure science fiction.
;D
-
Thomas,
Like I said, if 99%+ of courses would design for their players (almost certainly in the lower 99% of drive lengths) all of that is taken care of. The problem is, for decades the golf press judged courses by their potential for championship status. The every day course needs to be no more than 6,800 yards to challenge all but that 1% of top length players (which starts at about 280 yards, BTW)
It's not just the professionals.
At my public course we have a weekend group of about 25 golfers. I can name five of them who can regularly and consistently drive over 300 yards. These guys are hitting 190 yard wedges also. It's ridiculous.
Sunday, Andy was in the rough, 295 yards from the green, and hit 3-wood. I mis-spoke. Not ridiculous. Obscene!
-
Back with 70's technology Garland could have been fresh off an alien anal probe and still not be carrying his drives further than the best pros of the future. It is pure science fiction.
...
What perhaps you are missing is that this is a discussion about how hard PGA players were trying to hit their drives. One proponent wrote that Nicklaus was swinging 100% "several" times during a round. If I remember correctly, Jack generally said he swung 80%. That means that if he averaged 260, at 100% it would be 325. I am not claiming to have been hitting my best that far. David produced a video showing him reaching nearly 400. So the astute reader would recognize that comparing my best to their average would show they are not going for their best "several" times a round.
Unfortunately, your lack of astuteness leads you to often sling stupid insults on this website. You should do something about that.
-
There is a reason the best Pros can't compete with, much less are in the same time zone with Long Drive competitors. Being a PGA Tour pro means you do everything well, not necessarily are an elite driver of the ball.
Its very plausible Garland was hitting that distance given his height, being in terrific shape, and using Rock Balls aka Top Flites of the era...
-
In the 70’s the pros would play green courses while the civilians played brown courses. I would regularly be hitting wedge into 500+ yd par 5’s. Amazing what hard pan can do for your ego.
-
This thread, which I started pondering if Brysons recent distance enhancements would be a catalyst for change in the way that Little was seen as the poster boy for the introduction of the 14 club rule seems to have morphed into a famous Monty Pythons sketch .. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=26ZDB9h7BLY)
:)
Atb
-
In the 70’s the pros would play green courses while the civilians played brown courses. I would regularly be hitting wedge into 500+ yd par 5’s. Amazing what hard pan can do for your ego.
Once again your failure to be an astute reader has caught you out. The firmness of the ground had nothing to do with it. If you paid attention, you would have seen my claim was for carry of the ball. The astute reader would have asked how I could determine carry in that day and age. The answer would be that there were high power transmission lines running across one fairway 260 to 270 yards off the tee. From time to time I would hit one of the lines on the fly with my tee shot.
-
I played somewhere similar where hitting the wire was a mandatory re-tee. Did your course have a local rule concerning the wire?
-
Didn't know much about rules back then. I played with my dad who knew little about rules and younger brother, and had no influence from others as we played after work and dinner.
We simply hit it, found it, and hit it again.
-
You were a prodigy. How did a kid with that raw talent never get better?
-
Before marriage, I was right around a 10 handicap while not being able to putt at all. A lot of three putts. I basically gave up golf to marriage and family for 25 years.
-
There is a reason the best Pros can't compete with, much less are in the same time zone with Long Drive competitors. Being a PGA Tour pro means you do everything well, not necessarily are an elite driver of the ball.
Its very plausible Garland was hitting that distance given his height, being in terrific shape, and using Rock Balls aka Top Flites of the era...
Definitely plausible. I have seen quite a few 2-cappers (usually young, dumb college golfers -- I was an NAIA college coach for two years, so we got our share of those) who drive it with the very longest of the long drivers on the PGA tour and even a couple 10+ cappers with that kind of length. They 10+ guys are quite, quite rare, but in my 30+ years of golf, I've seen a handful. Usually very good athletes from other sports who just don't care enough/lack the finesse required to actually learn how to score. Knew a basketball player back in 1990 who was 6'6" and 250, amazingly long arms. Used to hit 2-iron(!) 280 to 290 in the air in 1992. Just prodigious.
Played in my SCGA Am Qualifier today with a bunch of young guns (College players and high school players nowadays, mostly), and oh my goodness did one of the kids I got paired with crush the ball. Lasered several of his back to the tee and he was 320 to 340 on every drive he hit with one going 351. He was hitting is 3-wood 290 to 310 -- and he's a college freshman. Ethan Barnes.
He outdrove me by 70 to 110 yards ... and I beat him by a shot. LOL
Still didn't shoot low enough to qualify (I shot even-par 72), but always enjoy Oak Valley. We had to walk, and no caddies allowed, due to Covid. Really struggled with my stamina on the back nine. Easily cost me 2 to 3 shots. But oh well, gotta get my fat *ss in shape!
-
Awesome David, bummer on just missing the cut thou.
I'm looking forward to seeing pics and such when/if you and John have your match. John claims to have never lost to a player who can't out drive him, so that sounds interesting. Maybe Anthony will come out of GCA retirement and caddy for you, he does fine work!
-
Awesome David, bummer on just missing the cut thou.
I'm looking forward to seeing pics and such when/if you and John have your match. John claims to have never lost to a player who can't out drive him, so that sounds interesting. Maybe Anthony will come out of GCA retirement and caddy for you, he does fine work!
How long do you hit the ball, Kavanaugh?
-
Nice to see Justin Thomas and Colin Morikawa showing you don't have to be built like a linebacker to play winning golf on the PGA Tour. ;)
-
Awesome David, bummer on just missing the cut thou.
I'm looking forward to seeing pics and such when/if you and John have your match. John claims to have never lost to a player who can't out drive him, so that sounds interesting. Maybe Anthony will come out of GCA retirement and caddy for you, he does fine work!
How long do you hit the ball, Kavanaugh?
I'm a 240 hitter.
-
Definitely above the Mendoza Line!
-
Definitely above the Mendoza Line!
LOLZ
-
423, was the best he could do apparently! ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayon1s5ZT2E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayon1s5ZT2E)
-
Deshampiehole shot three over today. Digest is emailing me, an idiot bud is texting me, I heard he hit a long one, are we over it yet?
-
DeChambeau might hit it far but he’s short on manners. After the most recent dressing down of a rules official he has been relegated to the “dead to me” scrap heap.
-
Agree with Tim re: his lack of etiquette / manners. The rules official didn't try to hit a 3 wood multiple times OB, so venting to his ruling which was correct is unprofessional. Will he be the John McEnroe of golf? He is on his way, that when things don't go his way he pouts it appears.
-
Agree with Tim re: his lack of etiquette / manners. The rules official didn't try to hit a 3 wood multiple times OB, so venting to his ruling which was correct is unprofessional. Will he be the John McEnroe of golf? He is on his way, that when things don't go his way he pouts it appears.
From Incredible Hulk to Incredible Sulk?
Yellow or red card time (VAR)?
Atb
-
Looks like roid rage to me...
Seems implausible to put on that much weight and muscle in such a short amount of time with just Protein shakes.
-
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/29572099/golfer-bryson-dechambeau-says-aims-live-130-140 (https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/29572099/golfer-bryson-dechambeau-says-aims-live-130-140)
Wow, what is next playing golf on other planets?
Bryson DeChambeau (http://www.espn.com/golf/player/_/id/10046/bryson-dechambeau) approaches golf differently from most pros. Apparently that goes for life, too.The eccentric player known as "The Scientist" told GQ he hopes to live to 130 years old. (https://www.gq.com/story/real-life-diet-bryson-dechambeau)
"I'm always trying to add more value to my life in general. I mean, my goal is to live to 130 or 140," DeChambeau told GQ. "I really think that's possible now with today's technology. I think somebody's going to do it in the next 30 or 40 years."
DeChambeau has been a big story since the PGA Tour returned to play. He has gained some 40 pounds due to an eating and workout regimen that has seen him add more than 20 yards driving distance.
"I always questioned everything," he said. "I didn't have a lot of resources when I was young. I couldn't go down all these roads with these questions that I asked at an early age. But now that I've been able to have some success, I've kinda gotten deep into most of these things and only taken what has added value to me."
Some of DeChambeau's fellow pros occasionally have shown impatience with the golfer's quirky style.
Justin Thomas (https://www.espn.com/golf/player/_/id/4848/justin-thomas) tweeted this about DeChambeau's comments to GQ: "What in the hell are you even talking about dude?"
During his round Thursday at the WGC-FedEx St. Jude Invitational, DeChambeau debated with a rules official for nearly three minutes, convinced his ball was sitting near a hill of fire ants on the par-4, 481-yard seventh hole and that he deserved a free drop.
On Friday, Brooks Koepka (http://www.espn.com/golf/player/_/id/6798/brooks-koepka) hit his tee shot on No. 7 in the same area. Just before Koepka lined up to hit his ball, he looked down and said, "There's an ant. ... Just kidding."
-
He is a double nothing burger with cheese. No roll back for you!!!
Wider, longer, bitch, repeat. Wider, longer, bitch, repeat.
-
If BDC was so concerned about fire ants why did he stay there for about 5 minutes? But, he had a bad lie, and other pros have called for a rules official to see if they could get relief from a bad lie via the rules. He tried this, and it didn't work. The earth didn't wobble in its orbit because of this.
This was a judgment call, different than the Memorial where he did not know the wording for the OB rule. And in that case, lots of people don't based on my experiences.
-
Pick your Bryson meme:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/gPGvhAzkXoGIi5qnE1M2TL8ZMGKzUr8_Cb_gpqZK5BY.png?auto=webp&s=f0ed6b8c549744bf2995d15a99f8d8e01511d4d2)
(https://memecrunch.com/meme/TV8P/ricky/image.jpg?w=400&c=1)
(https://i.insider.com/5f121cc9988ee3733b6a1a67?width=400&format=gif)
-
I guess this means Bryson is going to be around 100 more years!!!!
-
Imagine what it would do for the future of the tour if you rolled back the ball and were forced to watch this meat neck hit it 250 yards.
-
Imagine what it would do for the future of the tour if you rolled back the ball and were forced to watch this meat neck hit it 250 yards.
True.... I would love for his caddie to pull a joke on him and switch out his ball and give him a flight restricted ball on the first tee. It would be some great TV to listen to his bitching / complaining / disbelief of how he "smoked that drive" that went 240. He would be checking wind, humidity, gravitational pull etc.
-
To be clear, I am far past the point in my life where I expect athletes to be any sort of role model or paragon of virtue. I like to think I can watch great athletes in any sport and appreciate what they do, without burning much mental energy on who they are.
However, there are some exceptions where I just can't get around some of the surrounding noise with particular athletes. Barry Bonds was one. DeChambeau is another, for completely different reasons, and it actually has nothing to do with the weight gain (of which I am VERY suspicious, btw); it goes back to his brief time putting side saddle at the beginning of the season several years ago.
I began putting side saddle a little over 5 years ago, knew that DeChambeau had putted that way much of the time as an amateur, and was VERY interested to see him putt that way on Tour, which he had "announced" that he was going to do. The first event was a "co-ed" tournament in the Caribbean somewhere; can't remember the details now.
But I knew within a couple of holes of watching him that he was using a non-conforming putter, and I knew that he knew it, too. Without getting into the technicalities of the rules, he was holding the putter dead vertical to the ground without the heel of the putter being off the ground, which isn't possible if the putter is legal. EVERY golfer that putts side saddle knows this stuff because you have to buy custom made putters anyway.
And sure enough, the USGA ruled his putter to be non-conforming a couple of weeks later; I have NO idea what took them so long, because a Rules official could/should have DQ'd him after that first round for signing an incorrect scorecard with no penalty strokes.
Predictably, DeChambeau went off on the USGA for being out to get him because he was different and might be a danger to "tradition", which was complete BS. He was cheating, and he was doing it intentionally, and he lied about it, which is sort of the Unholy Trinity of personal conduct, especially in golf.
And that just adds to the suspicions I have about the weight gain and length gains, which NFL linemen would LOVE to be able to do in a couple of months. Ethics aren't a light switch that you turn off and on; you've got 'em, or you don't, and if you don't, you're always looking for an edge, legal or not. Leopards do not typically change their spots.
If you can't tell, this guy REALLY bothers me. The request for relief from invisible fire ants this week, like blaming the cameraman for a bad bunker shot, is just the latest, but not the greatest.
-
To be clear, I am far past the point in my life where I expect athletes to be any sort of role model or paragon of virtue. I like to think I can watch great athletes in any sport and appreciate what they do, without burning much mental energy on who they are.
However, there are some exceptions where I just can't get around some of the surrounding noise with particular athletes. Barry Bonds was one. DeChambeau is another, for completely different reasons, and it actually has nothing to do with the weight gain (of which I am VERY suspicious, btw); it goes back to his brief time putting side saddle at the beginning of the season several years ago.
I began putting side saddle a little over 5 years ago, knew that DeChambeau had putted that way much of the time as an amateur, and was VERY interested to see him putt that way on Tour, which he had "announced" that he was going to do. The first event was a "co-ed" tournament in the Caribbean somewhere; can't remember the details now.
But I knew within a couple of holes of watching him that he was using a non-conforming putter, and I knew that he knew it, too. Without getting into the technicalities of the rules, he was holding the putter dead vertical to the ground without the heel of the putter being off the ground, which isn't possible if the putter is legal. EVERY golfer that putts side saddle knows this stuff because you have to buy custom made putters anyway.
And sure enough, the USGA ruled his putter to be non-conforming a couple of weeks later; I have NO idea what took them so long, because a Rules official could/should have DQ'd him after that first round for signing an incorrect scorecard with no penalty strokes.
Predictably, DeChambeau went off on the USGA for being out to get him because he was different and might be a danger to "tradition", which was complete BS. He was cheating, and he was doing it intentionally, and he lied about it, which is sort of the Unholy Trinity of personal conduct, especially in golf.
And that just adds to the suspicions I have about the weight gain and length gains, which NFL linemen would LOVE to be able to do in a couple of months. Ethics aren't a light switch that you turn off and on; you've got 'em, or you don't, and if you don't, you're always looking for an edge, legal or not. Leopards do not typically change their spots.
If you can't tell, this guy REALLY bothers me. The request for relief from invisible fire ants this week, like blaming the cameraman for a bad bunker shot, is just the latest, but not the greatest.
I find him difficult to root for as he’s his own worst enemy. He is a talented player no doubt.
-
According to Every Shot Counts book, Tiger dominated because of his approach shots were so much better.
However, I think the great players always have another gear to pipe one when needed.
Agree on both points.
As a dinker, I miss more shots on and around the greens than I do with my lack of length. I'd hate to guess how many greens I miss with my 7 iron to sand wedge.
Many years ago when I played golf like you, I had an extra 20 yards in my driver when the conditions and situations called for it. Today, even with the big heads, if I swing hard it normally results in poor contact and loss of distance. BDC has found a way to differentiate himself from his peers. Literally, all the more power to him.
-
A sign the apocalypse maybe upon us. Last night's Cubs vs. Pirates game Javy Baez who takes hellacious cuts and known to swing at just about anything; swung through a fastball right down the middle. He swung so hard he had to drop to a knee. That isn't odd. However, the Cubs color guy Jim Deshaies says, "Javy trying to go DeChambeau".
-
A sign the apocalypse maybe upon us. Last night's Cubs vs. Pirates game Javy Baez who takes hellacious cuts and known to swing at just about anything; swung through a fastball right down the middle. He swung so hard he had to drop to a knee. That isn't odd. However, the Cubs color guy Jim Deshaies says, "Javy trying to go DeChambeau".
That is fantastic.
-
A bump as to what folks thought a few months ago .... an interesting re-read despite some thread deviation.
Congratulations to Bryson on the thought processes, hard work, effort and dedication that he has put into his game in the recent period in order to achieve what he has.
What happens to the game now though?
Will BDC's win be a catalyst for rule change?
atb
-
Showing for the sake of posterity Brysons recently published over 400 yds on-the-carry data.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElEs87MVMAAsT84?format=jpg&name=large)