Today, with the primary skill being emphasized being power, there seems to be less room for unconventional approaches. Along the lines of Jason Topp arguing that Trevino wouldn't succeed today, I think what Jason really means is that Trevino's style or approach wouldn't succeed today. Trevino himself is probably shrewd enough that he would've succeeded, but is there not a greater cost to the game when we forsake alternative approaches to the game in favor of the unrelenting pursuit of distance?

Thanks George.  That is what I was trying to say

Tom, my concern is that stories like the one you relate between Duffy and Hurley may end up sounding like tall tales in 20 years.

I'm objective enough to consider that people may have felt the same way, when Jack burst on the scene in the late 50s, playing the game Bobby wasn't familiar with. But Jack himself has stated that the relative shift toward power has increased greatly from when he was the young buck.

He might be mistaken, or he might be more accurate than anyone thinks.

But seriously George, have you read the report at the USGA annual meeting of Jim Vernon, the USGA's Equipment Standards Committee chairman?

If not you can find it on the USGA website. He mentions the fact that, among other things, the USGA has asked all the manufacturers to send them prototype sample balls that go 15 and 25 yards less far they can test.

What do you make of that? Do you think that's some kind of coy or sick joke on the part of the USGA?

Back to the original question - what is "skill" in golf.

A dictionary definition of skill is:

"noun:   ability to produce solutions in some problem domain

noun:   an ability that has been acquired by training".

Now golf certainly fits as a problem domain.

What's talent?  According to the dictionary - "noun:   a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity"  Tiger has a talent for driving the ball far.  Corey Pavin doesn't.

A talented person, if they practise, will always enjoy an advantage in their talent domain, over a person who doesn't have the same level of talent.  Pavin will never be as long as Tiger no matter the practise or technology he puts into it.  In golf different players have different talents, and levels of talent in many different areas.

A skill is the ability to produce solutions.  In golf that seems to me to include a whole bunch of items: the ability to hit the ball in the direction aimed; to hit it a given distance; to be able to bounce and roll it; to fly it and stop it; to control distance and spin out of a trap; to curve a shot around an obstacle; to hit it high over an obstacle; to hit it low under an obstacle; to flop a shot a given distance; to lag a putt from 50 feet; to routinely sink 5 foot putts; etc.

All of these skills are obtained through training and practicise.  The pros are supremely trained and practised.  Yet, none of them possess all the skills to the same degree or all the time.  Is any one skill or group of skills more important than others?  Beats me.

Driving the ball far and straight is a skill.  Some people are more possessed of this talent and skill than others.  In a general golf sense, are they more skilled than others who are shorter hitters?  Or less?  Or are they just specially skilled in this one area.

There were always people who were more talented and skilled in distance than others.  For instance, in 1986, Couples and DLIII were tour bombers, while Faxon and Sluman were distance also-rans.  The former two driving the ball around 280 to 285 in those days; the latter around 255.  Today almost 20 years later they are still in relatively the same position, bomber vs distance also-ran, with Couples and DLIII around 300 and Fax and Slu around 275 to 280.  The also rans were 30 yards shorter then and they're 30 yards shorter now.  They are both 20 yards longer than they were 20 years ago.  

Ergo, technology has increased their distance by 20 yards - significant, but not stunning.  They're relative position is the same - no turbo boost for the bombers.  The same conclusion as the USGA is telling Tom Paul.

If the ball is rolled back 20 to 25 yards some day, then we'll return to mid 80's distances.  Will the bombers be relatively reigned in?  Nope.  Being a bomber is partly a talent and partly a learned skill.  It doesn't appear to be disproportionately helped by technology at the pro level (or probably at the amateur level either).  Should the distance skill be punished, relative to other golf skills?

So, reign in the distance of the ball to protect the competitiveness of classic courses in professional tournaments if you will.  But, it's not going to reduce the inherent advantage of talented and skilled long hitters.

Perhaps what the USGA is trying to say is that a player with a flawed swing, where he/she cannot return the club face to the ball at the angle and speed desired for the particular shot, should not be saved by technology.  Now, that would be a challenging one to try to measure and regulate.

DougS:

Your reply #80 is a very thought provoking post---but let's just say on first reading of it I not only don't agree at all, it sounds to me like a fairly off-kilter and dangerous direction and philosophy. I think your sentiment in that post, though, could very well be worth it's own thread.

In my opinion, that Hurley/Duffy match in Nebraska last summer was just about the most perfect example of the old tortoise and hare analogy that used to be applied to both golf and also perhaps architecture in the old days.

That's one reason I was so fascinated by the match and not the least reason being it's outcome. The other reason is the way Duffy played is the way I played my entire career as well, or tried to. The successes I had with that kind of game I'm very proud of and I certainly don't regret anything or blame golf ball and equipment technology if I got outdriven by the likes of a Sigel by up to 75 yards sometimes.

Obviously he and Hurley are on a slightly different level than I was since Pat Duffy apparently went to USC and although I've not heard of him he may've been a fairly well recognized college golfer, perhaps even an All American type. He's also very much a mid-amateur now---a businessman golfer.

But his match against Hurley was one that was the ultimate in intelligence and course management in and of his own game and what he obviously understood were his strengths and skills and his intuitive understanding of what Hurley's (who was only 18 years old) Achille's Heel may have been. As it turns out his intuition was very accurate and also effective in golf.

It is certainly my understanding and experience in that tortoise and hare analogy in particularly match play golf that it is very much the part of the tortoise (shorter player) to play safe and somewhat conservative golf not just to avoid mistakes on his own part but also to take advantage of the errors of exuberance of the high risk taking hare (longer player).

To me as long as there is a fairly linear distance increase proportional to swing speed increase I can certainly live with being out-driven and out-hit and I feel anyone should understand that difference and both live with it and accept it in golf and particularly competitive golf. I feel to think otherwise is nothing more than some artificial and perhaps even selfish desire to allow technology to somehow close the effect of this obvious difference resulting from even physical strength which in my opinion is a potential athletic talent in golf. Not many possess Hurley's physical talent in strength and power that way and I don't think they should rely on technology to try to reduce its potential effect and result in competitive golf.

John Hurley is still a teenager and even though his game is remarkable to watch in its length he is a smart young guy and he does realize that kind of strategic and course management approach only won't lead to the kind of consistent success he's looking for. He loves the idea of overwhelming a golf course and sometimes he can do that and obviously sometimes he can't. He clearly overwhelmed Wild Horse in the Nebraska Match Play championship when he set the course record of 64 in one round.

I asked his parents as I followed that match with Duffy if John was going to try to make the US Amateur at Merion. They said he was and he did make it by winning his sectional qualifying site to take the one spot offered. I tired to line up a good caddy for him to give him course management advice at Merion but as I feared it would that course just caught him up in its web and for him he shot a million at Merion although he did fine at Philly C.C.

To me all this is reasonable and the way golf and architecture should be for a golfer like that. He does realize if he works on those things that are not his strengths and skills right now---shorter shots and a more sophiisticated approach to risk etc he will be a much more complete golfer and I think if he does that he can be successful on the PGA Tour which is where he wants to go.

I also aske Pat Duffy who is app twice John Hurley's age if he was going to try for the US Amateur at Merion and he said he wasn't because he needed to get back to work.   I believe he may be a lawyer.

It was one of the greatest matches I've ever seen for a whole host of reasons and I would just hate to see technology in any way attempt to close the gap between what Duffy and his skill sets brought to that match compared to Hurley's.

Duffy won that match with intelligence and execution knowing full well the realities of Hurley's game and today's technology.

And in my opinion, that's the way it should be.

Tom,

The main issue I see with comparing "skill" at golf with "skill" at fishing (and defining or quantifying it) is this; the word SUCCESS. For me to go out on the flats with a 4 lb test trying to catch a 20 lb bonefish it will become very clear very quickly that I am completely unskilled. If any bonefish ever hooked himself on a line I set he would be really pissed at himself, pissed the way you or I get when we smash our toes on the leg of a table. When fishing (which is a good example of a sport in which the man is not competing against another man) "success" is very clear. Catch a fish and you've succeeded. How could that analogy correlate to golf? Hit a 250 yard drive? Make a Par? Make a birdie? Shoot even par for 18 holes? I don't know.

It seems Ran Morrissette has devoted his golf to that same approach Max Behr speaks of in your post. The trouble I see with a formal definition of skill as it might pertain to I&B regulations is the term "success". I have not played golf with Ran, but I am guessing he did not perfect the game with modern equipment prior to feeling the need to "adjust his instruments down" to retain "skill" and increase his enjoyment of the game. I would assume he simply has greater sentiment for the challenge and play of the game as it is with his current equipment.

So how are we to define SUCCESS at golf, and more specifically how it relates to ones "skill"? I'll have to think a bit more on that and post a bit later.

Jason,

You don't necessarily have to be a longer hitter to make it on tour.  Corey Pavin would be the poster boy for that.  It gives me comfort to know that I could outdrive him in 1986 and I could still do it today (at least if I make a square hit).  And it isn't because of technology.  Mind you, after that he might just beat 10 times out of 10.

I imagine there are ten's of thousands of players that are as long off the tee as the average PGA Tour player today.  But, they're probably nowhere near as consistent, and they have nowhere near the rest of the game to be competitive.  The pro game is more than just a power game.

Furyk

Toms

Donald

DiMarco



By the way, look at the short games of the guys you mentioned. Other than Singh I'd put all of their short games in the top 20 or 30 on tour today. Is there any significance to that?

Can't argue with your first paragraph Jason. Your list speaks for itself.

On the accuracy issue, I would contend that course selection and set-up are the primary culprit for the problem. The tragedy is the top guys make so much money that they are not incented to go play Riviera and Colonial and Harbour Town. Perhaps the condensed schedule Tim Finchem is implementing for next year will bear some fruit. It sure was interesting watching the ball bounce a little bit at Riviera this year. I would not call it real firm, but the weather certainly permitted a little firmer set-up than in recent years.

To be a top player you do have to be long today - Woods, Mickelson, Singh, Els, Goosen.  

When is the last time Pavin won?

I was responding to your previous posting where you said that: "A response I got, which makes intuitive sense to me, is that a player has to be a longer hitter to get on tour in the first place.  Your statistics certainly undermine that view, by comparing the same players in different eras. "  

The point I was responding to was that you needed to be a long hitter to be on the tour at all.  Pavin's on the tour; he's not a long hitter.  Who knows when he last won.  I don't dispute that the top 5 are long hitters today.  Although VJ is only 16th, Mickelson was 26th and Goosen 44th, last year.  They have other parts of their games, both physical and mental that make them winners.

"How could that analogy correlate to golf? Hit a 250 yard drive? Make a Par? Make a birdie? Shoot even par for 18 holes? I don't know.
So how are we to define SUCCESS at golf, and more specifically how it relates to ones "skill"? I'll have to think a bit more on that and post a bit later."

Sully:

The answers to those questions can certainly never be exact, that's for sure but I think there are some answers in golf to that fishing analogy.

I realize it's theory and probably quite impractical but I think to adjust a really good player's implements down to that "fine point" to just sustain his skill in golf I&B for an elite player who swings at the ODS limit (120mph) distance from the ODS limit should be brought back not the 25 yards the USGA is asking for prototypes for but about 40-50 yards and to also create a limitation on spin rate that a ball cannot spin less than about 3,000 rpms at ODS. I think that would bring I&B and performance for the elite player back to that fine point of adjustment where architectural features and logical strategies would become far more relevent and applicable then they are now. That's a sort of broadbrush answer but I hope you get the idea. I'm not saying that will happen but I think something like that would be in the realm of 4lbs test with a 12-15 lbs bonefish to an expert fisherman.

Quote from: George Pazin on February 20, 2006, 02:03:24 PM

Today, with the primary skill being emphasized being power, there seems to be less room for unconventional approaches. Along the lines of Jason Topp arguing that Trevino wouldn't succeed today, I think what Jason really means is that Trevino's style or approach wouldn't succeed today. Trevino himself is probably shrewd enough that he would've succeeded, but is there not a greater cost to the game when we forsake alternative approaches to the game in favor of the unrelenting pursuit of distance?

Quote from: Sean Arble on February 21, 2006, 04:18:18 AM

Is power the primary skill in golf today?  I think putting, chipping/wedge play and driving, in that order are the primary areas of the game and have been since I have been involved with the game.  

Lee Trevino and Gary Player and any other of the 15 or so truly great players of the game would win in any era because they are winners.  Sounds dopey, but winners find ways to win.  I think this is just as true as golf being more about the quality of the missed shots rather than the quality of the good shots.

Ciao

Sean

Putting, wedge play, etc., are the defining differences between winners and also rans. As long as scoring is the measuring stick, and not Dan King's Virtual Tour , this will be the case. The difference is now that power is pretty much a given.

It's not my observation that power is much more important than 30 years ago, it's Jack Nicklaus'.

George

I think this is a very fine sentiment coming from arguably the game's greatest power player.  When I look at my list of the 10 all-time greats at least seven spots are taken by guys who could bang the ball. There is only one guy, maybe two, who could be called short hitters.
 
Ciao

Sean

Skill in fishing, especially fly fishing, is in the presentation, figuring out what fly to use, and line control.

Now, you tell me what skill there is in golf.