Sergio

« **on:** July 21, 2007, 02:52:38 PM »

It seems that Sergio this year at Carnoustie has adopted the tactic of Tiger last year, at Hoylake, of taking an iron off the tee and hitting a longer approach shot (not every hole, I agree, and he played with great intelligence today). It has served him well, but look at the length of the holes he's been doing it on - 500 yards all but a whisker! It seems incredible. But then, remember Nicklaus at Muirfield in 1966. Didn't he play the 540-yard 17th with a 5-iron and 3-iron or something like it?

A few years ago I was lucky enough to play a round of golf in the company of Ken Bowden. After he had hit a wonderful drawn 2-iron to about 2 feet on one hole I asked him about Nicklaus's length. He told me that Tiger had asked him about this. He told him that Nicklaus could hit a 2-iron 282 yards all carry. Tiger replied that he could do the same.

« **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:05:32 PM »

Mark,

I assume the Beeb's coverage has included measurements of the players' club speed, ball speed, and carry.

Sergio's is near or at the highest in the field; his ball speed is regularly in the 177 mph range. He's jacking it past Choi...as the caddies say over here, "Sumbitch is golfin his ball!"

Driver / iron club choice this year isn't about dry conditions, though, is it? The wind (or lack) surely is a factor in the decision. Maybe also his putter is taking pressure off his long game, so that he doesn't feel the need to hit it close?

Mark

« **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:09:12 PM »

I think if Sergio wins tomorrow, we may have seen the "strategy of the future" for winning Opens. Tiger last year and Sergio this year seem to demonstrate that whoever is hitting their 2-iron and 3-iron the best has a huge advantage over the rest of the field on links courses.

Perhaps that's an unexpected but logical outcome of the distance and straightness of the modern ball. It hasn't taken the long iron out of the game, it has just moved it from the fairway to the tee. At least on links courses.

« **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:10:51 PM »

I think they are only doing club head and ball speed on a few holes, at least as far as our TV coverage is concerned. I fear I haven't taken these in as the results rarely seem to bear out the statistics.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:13:09 PM »

Are we seeing a resurgence of long-iron play and reduction in rescue clubs and fairway woods?

« **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2007, 03:53:00 PM »

Mark

Irons: its a links thing!

Mark

« **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2007, 04:17:20 PM »

Mark -

I don't think playing links golf teeing off with less than driver is anything new. Didn't Peter Thompson win most of his Opens teeing off with a 3-wood?

As noted above, Nicklaus used a lot of 1-irons when he played in the Open. My guess is the loft of Sergio's 2-iron might be very close to the loft of Nicklaus' 1-iron of 30 years ago.

Long irons might be better suited for links golf than hybrids, as they flight the ball lower, which keeps your ball out of the wind and gives you more roll on the ground. Of course, that applies to only the relatively small number of golfers good enough to hit a long iron well!

DT

« **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2007, 05:36:12 PM »

Sean,

My speculation was that with the distance the big hitters have nowadays, doesn't that make laying back short of trouble the prudent play on many more holes than it did a generation ago? There's gotta be more stuff within driver range (at a typical Open Rota course) for Tiger Woods than there was for Jack Nicklaus. Or maybe not, it's speculation on my part.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2007, 06:03:26 PM »

I think Sergio will do it tomorrow...just about a 2-man race unless he blows up....which of course is possible

both he and Stricker have had chances before in big events....will be interesting to see if either/both crack, esp since they are playing together

« **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2007, 06:04:42 PM »

Sergio was fascinating to watch today. He used his driver quite effectively on some holes then finished up on that tough stretch of finishing holes using his 2-iron. Aside from Tiger when he is on, who else has the power and ball flight control to execute this strategy on such long, difficult holes? He was very impressive today. He can be a punk sometimes but he has personality and lots of game. I hope he can hold it together tomorrow.

« **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2007, 07:12:56 PM »

Mark:

Garcia played beautifully today with his driver off the tee, irons off the tee, whatever. As to hitting holes of near 500 yards in two with an iron off the tee, don't forget the ball was rolling a long way at Carnoustie today. Anyone could see that on TV. Get it in the fairway and keep it in the fairway and it would roll a long way. If it rains a lot tonight and tomorrow, like an inch or more, I doubt Garcia will be using irons off the tee on Sunday on the really long par 4s if he wants to get on in two.

« **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2007, 07:14:41 PM »

Is this so new? When the Open was last at Muirfield I seem to remember Peter Alliss bemoning the lack of drivers being used.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2007, 01:54:34 PM »

Mark,

When golfers are teeing off on 499 par 4 holes in 52 degree, damp air, and reaching the green with an iron, it tells you that technology is thwarting the intent of the architecture, which is distributed such that it's meant to interface with the golfer, not allowing them to avoid it.

« **Reply #13 on:** July 22, 2007, 03:45:31 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 22, 2007, 01:54:34 PM

Mark,

When golfers are teeing off on 499 par 4 holes in 52 degree, damp air, and reaching the green with an iron, it tells you that technology is thwarting the intent of the architecture, which is distributed such that it's meant to interface with the golfer, not allowing them to avoid it.

But how many players on the planet can do this?

.0000001%

« **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2007, 04:05:11 PM »

I've seen this argument alot--it's only .00001% that can hit the ball so long, take advantage of technology, etc...

But I don't think that is the point. In any field, the standard is set by the best. In golf the elite touring professionals have set a standard that is now incomprehensible to everyone else and this is DIFFERENT than they way things used to be in some important ways.

50 years ago it was the precision of Hogan or Snead that the 10 handicapper couldn't duplicate. The avid golfer could tee off from the same tees and length was not the defining issue. Irons were hit about the same distance as the pros.

Watch old Shell Golf matches and see the guys (Palmer, Nicklaus) hit 7 irons from 145 yards--it was amazing how they shaped shots and controlled distance without hitting all out. Nicklaus of course could hit a 7 iron 180 back then if he wanted to but at risk of mis-hitting a shot with far more dire consequences than today.

Today, its smash mouth golf that is fundamentally different than how the game was played for 500 years. While controlled length was (and should) always be rewarded, it's not the same anymore.

What is so sad is that while 50 years ago good avid players could play the same course and attempt to duplicate their heroes exploits, today it is such a different game and only the elite pros will ever know what its like to hit 250 yard three irons

Worse, for new golf courses and design as well as for young players coming up who want to be one of those elite one day, that .00001% is setting the new standard for the game.

« **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2007, 04:09:35 PM »

Quote from: Chris Cupit on July 22, 2007, 04:05:11 PM

I've seen this argument alot--it's only .00001% that can hit the ball so long, take advantage of technology, etc...

But I don't think that is the point. In any field, the standard is set by the best. In golf the elite touring professionals have set a standard that is now incomprehensible to everyone else and this is DIFFERENT than they way things used to be in some important ways.

50 years ago it was the precision of Hogan or Snead that the 10 handicapper couldn't duplicate. The avid golfer could tee off from the same tees and length was not the defining issue. Irons were hit about the same distance as the pros.

Watch old Shell Golf matches and see the guys (Palmer, Nicklaus) hit 7 irons from 145 yards--it was amazing how they shaped shots and controlled distance without hitting all out. Nicklaus of course could hit a 7 iron 180 back then if he wanted to but at risk of mis-hitting a shot with far more dire consequences than today.

Today, its smash mouth golf that is fundamentally different than how the game was played for 500 years. While controlled length was (and should) always be rewarded, it's not the same anymore.

What is so sad is that while 50 years ago good avid players could play the same course and attempt to duplicate their heroes exploits, today it is such a different game and only the elite pros will ever know what its like to hit 250 yard three irons

Worse, for new golf courses and design as well as for young players coming up who want to be one of those elite one day, that .00001% is setting the new standard for the game.

Chris I think you are missing my point.

They can set the standard all they like but 99.99% of golfers to play the game still won't be able to match it. This is no different to the similar threads I've read about, specifically Merion. They want to alter two greens for a 4 day tournament that might only happen once a decade. Its seems very silly....

« **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2007, 04:15:41 PM »

I very much agree it is silly but it is the new standard. What is not silly though is that the impact of the elite affects all of us. Your clubs and balls are more expensive. Your courses are longer, more expensive to maintain and it takes longer to play.

I'm with you but the majority of golfers don't care if it is silly--they judge the game in light of what they see the best of the best do and no amount of common sense will change that.

« **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2007, 04:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Chris Cupit on July 22, 2007, 04:15:41 PM

I very much agree it is silly but it is the new standard. What is not silly though is that the impact of the elite affects all of us. Your clubs and balls are more expensive. Your courses are longer, more expensive to maintain and it takes longer to play.

I'm with you but the majority of golfers don't care if it is silly--they judge the game in light of what they see the best of the best do and no amount of common sense will change that.

Chris,

Courses are getting longer. It would be interesting to gauge how much demand there is for longer courses. Some of the finest courses I've played are short tracks including Pacific Dunes. On the competive golf front I could see lack of length being a liability, but for 99.99% of normal course play its not an issue. So if demand for longer courses isn't coming from golfers, I'm not sure why the "supply" side keeps insisting on it....

As for conditioning, that is a whole different animal and yes its a big problem in how it affects the bottom line.

In the arms race with new clubs and balls coming out on an almost monthly basis it seems to be a function of keeping up with the Joneses. If there are people who can afford new clubs every year then so be it, its thier own fault for paying the high prices. As for me, its rare I add new clubs to the bag. In this case, equipment is indeed driven by demand and what people will pay, so consumers only have themselves to blame for that...

« **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2007, 04:37:36 PM »

Kalen,

I'm heading out for the US Mid-AM and I think PAc Dunes is one of the courses. (It might be Bandon Dunes or Trails--I can't keep up

) Anyway I hope to play some out there.

I agree that ultimately it's the consumers' "fault" to always try and keep up but it is also part of human nature in a competitive sport not to want to be at a disadvantage.

I'm in the industry and don't usually have to pay for equipment but I HATE having new stuff coming out every month. I have equipment that is 8 months old, I really don't play that much anymore and all I hear about is the newest shaft or driver, the hotsticks fitting program or something "new" that makes me feel like when I do tee it up in a few weeks for "real" I don't have the best chance to compete!!!

Yes, it's my fault but what other sport literally let's you buy a game more than golf? Why can't there be a standard "ball and bat" and the object for the players is to use those tools to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes!!

What arms race ever ends well?

« **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2007, 04:48:20 PM »

Quote from: Chris Cupit on July 22, 2007, 04:37:36 PM

Kalen,

I'm heading out for the US Mid-AM and I think PAc Dunes is one of the courses. (It might be Bandon Dunes or Trails--I can't keep up ) Anyway I hope to play some out there.

I agree that ultimately it's the consumers' "fault" to always try and keep up but it is also part of human nature in a competitive sport not to want to be at a disadvantage.

I'm in the industry and don't usually have to pay for equipment but I HATE having new stuff coming out every month. I have equipment that is 8 months old, I really don't play that much anymore and all I hear about is the newest shaft or driver, the hotsticks fitting program or something "new" that makes me feel like when I do tee it up in a few weeks for "real" I don't have the best chance to compete!!!

Yes, it's my fault but what other sport literally let's you buy a game more than golf? Why can't there be a standard "ball and bat" and the object for the players is to use those tools to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes!!

What arms race ever ends well?

Chris,

From what I heard they are only playing on BT and BD, but I could be mistaken on that one.

I did know you are a owner and I wasn't trying to make a direct assalt on you..

Its a tough gig and you're between a rock and hard spot. As much as I hate to say it, I don't buy gear in the golf shop cause I know its cheaper online and otherwise. At the same time, I know you rely on that revenue, but I'm making small micro decisions to spend less for the same when I can. I also understand that clubs don't make the man, the swing does, so 90% of club advertising/marketing/spin just goes in one ear and out the other. But maybe I'm just different that way

I guess all these things are the reasons I work for the man, instead of working for myself ...

« **Reply #20 on:** July 22, 2007, 05:38:48 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on July 21, 2007, 07:12:56 PM

Mark:

Garcia played beautifully today with his driver off the tee, irons off the tee, whatever. As to hitting holes of near 500 yards in two with an iron off the tee, don't forget the ball was rolling a long way at Carnoustie today. Anyone could see that on TV. Get it in the fairway and keep it in the fairway and it would roll a long way. If it rains a lot tonight and tomorrow, like an inch or more, I doubt Garcia will be using irons off the tee on Sunday on the really long par 4s if he wants to get on in two.

Just curious but does anyone know how many Drivers Sergio (or Padraig) hit today?

« **Reply #21 on:** July 22, 2007, 05:43:44 PM »

Quote from: Kalen Braley on July 22, 2007, 04:48:20 PM

Quote from: Chris Cupit on July 22, 2007, 04:37:36 PM
Kalen,

I'm heading out for the US Mid-AM and I think PAc Dunes is one of the courses. (It might be Bandon Dunes or Trails--I can't keep up ) Anyway I hope to play some out there.

I agree that ultimately it's the consumers' "fault" to always try and keep up but it is also part of human nature in a competitive sport not to want to be at a disadvantage.

I'm in the industry and don't usually have to pay for equipment but I HATE having new stuff coming out every month. I have equipment that is 8 months old, I really don't play that much anymore and all I hear about is the newest shaft or driver, the hotsticks fitting program or something "new" that makes me feel like when I do tee it up in a few weeks for "real" I don't have the best chance to compete!!!

Yes, it's my fault but what other sport literally let's you buy a game more than golf? Why can't there be a standard "ball and bat" and the object for the players is to use those tools to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes!!

What arms race ever ends well?

Chris,

From what I heard they are only playing on BT and BD, but I could be mistaken on that one.

I did know you are a owner and I wasn't trying to make a direct assalt on you.. Its a tough gig and you're between a rock and hard spot. As much as I hate to say it, I don't buy gear in the golf shop cause I know its cheaper online and otherwise. At the same time, I know you rely on that revenue, but I'm making small micro decisions to spend less for the same when I can. I also understand that clubs don't make the man, the swing does, so 90% of club advertising/marketing/spin just goes in one ear and out the other. But maybe I'm just different that way

I guess all these things are the reasons I work for the man, instead of working for myself ...

No offense taken at all. As corny as this sounds I hate what equipment costs for my members. The game shouldn't be that expensive and I don't blame people for buying the same stuff somewhere else for less.

All I ask in a private club setting is a chance to either show my member it might be worth a little more $ (by offering help on the range or a fitting by one of the staff "for free") or the chance to match a price if I can.

I am also a member of a private club and I CHOOSE to buy stuff there even when I don't have to in order to "support the club" and be "a good member" but I completely understand people who may think I'm nuts

« **Reply #22 on:** July 22, 2007, 09:49:15 PM »

Chris Cupit -

I am well aware that your knowledge and appreciation of the game and its history is far greater than mine. However, I must take issue with your notion of the "standard bat & ball" relative to the history of golf.

Golf clubs & equipment have changed regularly and relentlessly throughout its history. Change IS the tradition of the game. Specialty clubs have existed from the rut-iron to the lob wedge. Before the 14-club limit was introduced Lawson Little and other golfers regularly played with 20-25 clubs in their bags.

From what I have read, Ben Hogan certainly did not play with the "standard bat & ball." From putting an extra spike on his golf shoes, to rotating his grips to prevent a hook, to looking thru dozens of golf balls to find the ones that had the correct amount of paint in their dimples, Hogan was obsessive about finding the best equipment he could and customizing it to suit his game. My guess is Hogan would have LOVED to play golf with equipment knowledge (frequency matching shafts, launch angle monitors, etc.) that is available today.

I agree with much of what you are saying, but I do think it is important to be fully aware of how golf equipment has evolved over the years.

DT

« **Reply #23 on:** July 23, 2007, 11:18:34 AM »

Let's narrow the modern equipment generality to two items: the bigger faced, longer shafted and more forgiving driver and the golf ball.

Irons of today, for the most part, are the same as 20 and 40 years ago. Perhaps the lofts are stronger but if you were to take a 40 year old Wilson DynaPower 5 iron, cut the shaft length to a 6 iron length it would go about the same distance as a modern 6 iron.

The square groove controversy is only an issue because of the ball ...

« **Reply #24 on:** July 23, 2007, 12:49:44 PM »

I haven't read this whole thread, but it sure started out with a bunch of poppy cock. Tiger using irons on fast and firm Royal Liverpool is entirely different than Sergio using them on soggy Carnoustie. The only possible similarity is a hypothetical copy cat effect.

News:

Mark_Rowlinson

Mark Bourgeois

Brent Hutto

Mark_Rowlinson

Mark_Rowlinson

Mark Bourgeois

David_Tepper

Brent Hutto

PThomas

Phil Benedict

TEPaul

Tony_Muldoon

Patrick_Mucci

Kalen Braley

Chris Cupit

Kalen Braley

Chris Cupit

Kalen Braley

Chris Cupit

Kalen Braley

Chris Cupit

Chris Cupit

David_Tepper

Mike Benham

Garland Bayley