[Jason Topp]

"I just find the statements of "gloom and doom" that seem so pervasive on this thread and elsewhere on this board to be a bit thick at times. More importantly, THEY ARE NOT BACKED UP BY THE FACTS!"

David Tepper:

Thank you very much for that---I second that notion.

So you do not share the view espoused by the USGA committee that hitting fairways is irrelevant to success on the PGA Tour?  Or do you not think it is important?

Do you dispute Geoff Shackelford's analysis that if a tour player can get inside of 160 yards, he is better off bombing it as close as possible to the green without worrying about whether he hits the fairways?

You see it as neither a positive or negative that the distance gap between the average PGA tour drive and the average player's drive has nearly doubled in the last 25 years?

All of these assertions are backed by data.  

Will it destroy the game?  No, it has changed the game.  Is the change negative?  I think so.

[Tom Zeni]

Not only would Hogan, Trevino, and Player win in this era, they might have won more!

Using present day's equipment, golf balls, and taking improved agronomy into consideration, what Hogan, Trevino, and Player had, and could be applied today to their benefit, as compared with most of the tour players, is phenomenal "shot making" ability.

As an aside, I consider Lee Trevino the best wedge player of all time. As for Gary, no one has ever been a better bunker player.

At the 2005 Master's practice round, Player got standing O's on the back nine, as he related stories from Master's past to assembled greenside crowds.  

At the 16th, where we were at the time, Gary put on a bunker clinic, sending roars back through the loblolly pines to the clubhouse. It was one of the most impressive displays of working the ball from the bunker I've ever seen. As an example, from the high side bunker to a green sloping away toward the pond, Player stopped the ball going down hill! The roars of approval, as Gary tipped his hat, gave you chills.

If you're skeptical, I have photos that I'll place on the board closer to the first week of April.

[David_Tepper]

Jason -

I respect your point of view on this. But I would submit the following:

1) Length in golf has ALWAYS been rewarded. Hogan and Snead dominated their era, in part, because they were among the longest drivers of the ball. Same with Palmer and Nicklaus.

2) Hitting fairways off the tee has been a questionable priority for a long time. I distinctly remember reading that Nicklaus felt he was OK being in the rough off the tee, as long as he was on the right side of the fairway.  He was happy being long and in the rough because he was strong enough to muscle the ball to the green (this was almost 40 years ago!). I even recall David Graham hitting driver off the tee in the final round of US Open he won a Merion (the 1970's?) because he felt it was far more important being as close to the green as possible rather than shorter and in the fairway.

3) The final leaderboard at Riviera shows 8 of the top 20 players being either over 40, hitters of modest length and/or small in stature - Couples, Lehman, Immelman, Donald, Mayfair, Estes, Furyk & Clark.

4) 11 of the top 20 players on tour with the lowest scoring averages currently fall into the same category - Green, Toms, Obersholser, Furyk, Verplank, Cink, Donald, Lehman, Campbell, Immelman & DiMarco.

As I said in my first post, bigger, stronger and more powerful athletes are coming to the fore in almost EVERY sport. Check the starting pitchers of almost every team in baseball. My guess is almost all the guys will be 6'2" or more. The "ideal" height of a hockey player 30-40 years ago was under 6 feet. Now there are plenty of guys in the NHL well over that.

It is no surprise (to me at least) that the top-5 golfers in the world are 6'2" or taller. But, as I mentioned in my earlier posts, I do take exception to the notion that smaller and/or older golfers can no longer compete. That Fred Funk won the Players Championship and Michael Campbell won the US Open last year speaks to the question of whether Trevino and Player could be competitive in this era loud and clear.

DT        

[Jason Topp]

David - I respect your view as well and in fact have started threads arguing that distance is not really a problem http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=16574;start=msg288155#msg288155 and that longer courses are really more equitable for shorter distance players  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17023;start=msg298370#msg298370

Based on the responses and reading further, I have become convinced that the view I tried out in the distance thread is wrong.  I think the disadvantage shorter accurate players face today is dramatically different than it was 25 years ago.

As to your points (I used quotes because of my lack of technical expertise and so I will not be confused with Mucci) .

Jason -

"I respect your point of view on this. But I would submit the following:

1) Length in golf has ALWAYS been rewarded. Hogan and Snead dominated their era, in part, because they were among the longest drivers of the ball. Same with Palmer and Nicklaus."

"2) Hitting fairways off the tee has been a questionable priority for a long time. I distinctly remember reading that Nicklaus felt he was OK being in the rough off the tee, as long as he was on the right side of the fairway.  He was happy being long and in the rough because he was strong enough to muscle the ball to the green (this was almost 40 years ago!). I even recall David Graham hitting driver off the tee in the final round of US Open he won a Merion (the 1970's?) because he felt it was far more important being as close to the green as possible rather than shorter and in the fairway."

I think stastics demonstrate otherwise:

Top 10 money leaders in 1980 and driving accuracy rank

Watson - 57th
Trevino - 12th
Strange - 19th
Bean - 43rd
Crenshaw - 79th
Pate - 62nd
Burns - not available
Stadler - 114th
Reid - 1st
Floyd - 77th

Stadler hit 60.2%, Reid hit 79.5%
Nicklaus was 12th in money, 13th in driving accuracy that year


Top 10 money winners today:

 Player Events Money
1 1 Tiger Woods  188th (54.6%)
2 2 Vijay Singh     147th
3 3 Phil Mickelson    161st
4 4 Jim Furyk    31st (68.1%)
5 5 David Toms     54th
6 6 Kenny Perry     88th
7 7 Chris DiMarco     122nd
8 8 Retief Goosen     157th
9 9 Bart Bryant     6th (73%)
10 10 Sergio Garcia    153rd

Median in 1980 - 57th
Median in 2005 - 135th

Accuracy has become a lot less important.  If one did a similar comparison of length statistics I am confident you would reach the exact oposite conclusion about length.


With respect to Nicklaus, he might have decided to bomb it in certain circumstances but did not always pursue this strategy.  He won at Muirfield dinking irons off the tee all the way around.  He also was a very accurate driver (ranking 13th in 1980) and never hit it all over the park the way Tiger, Vijay, Phil, Garcia and Goosen do today.  Furthermore, there is not a single example of a short hitter that is in the very top eschelon of the game, unlike Pavin, Faldo, Trevino, Player, and others in the past.  


For example from:  http://www.geoffshackelford.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=230137&categoryId=19863


"3) The final leaderboard at Riviera shows 8 of the top 20 players being either over 40, hitters of modest length and/or small in stature - Couples, Lehman, Immelman, Donald, Mayfair, Estes, Furyk & Clark."

There is no doubt that the distance advantage will change depending on the venue, although referring to Couples, Lehman and Clark as short is a stretch.  I'm sure that there will be a similar result at Colonial.  Over the course of the year and in the big events, longer hitters have won more often in recent years despite not hitting fairways.


"4) 11 of the top 20 players on tour with the lowest scoring averages currently fall into the same category - Green, Toms, Obersholser, Furyk, Verplank, Cink, Donald, Lehman, Campbell, Immelman & DiMarco."

Scoring averages can be a bit misleading over a partial year. The sample size is small.  Look at the lowest scoring averages for 2005:
 
1 1 Tiger Woods 2(distance)/188 (accuracy)  
2 2 Vijay Singh  16/147
3 3 Jim Furyk  170/31
4 4 Luke Donald  135/75
5 5 Phil Mickelson  26/161
6 6 Kenny Perry  9/88
7 7 Sergio Garcia  10/153
8 8 David Toms  107/54
9 9 Ben Crane  61/182
10 10 Davis Love III  8/165

Median distance ranking 21 (1/2 way between 5th and 6th)
Median Accuracy ranking 150.

I don't have the time to go back and do a similar analysis for 1980 but I would bet that, while the best scoring averages were held by long hitters, those players hit the fairway.  Recall how Watson was considered wild off the tee.  His 1980 accuracy ranking would have been far better than 8 of the top 10 on the scoring list in 2005.
 
"As I said in my first post, bigger, stronger and more powerful athletes are coming to the fore in almost EVERY sport. Check the starting pitchers of almost every team in baseball. My guess is almost all the guys will be 6'2" or more. The "ideal" height of a hockey player 30-40 years ago was under 6 feet. Now there are plenty of guys in the NHL well over that.

It is no surprise (to me at least) that the top-5 golfers in the world are 6'2" or taller. But, as I mentioned in my earlier posts, I do take exception to the notion that smaller and/or older golfers can no longer compete. That Fred Funk won the Players Championship and Michael Campbell won the US Open last year speaks to the question of whether Trevino and Player could be competitive in this era loud and clear."

It is possible for a shorter hitter to compete, but the disadvantage is greater today.
DT        

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

David Tepper,

If you're going to rely on facts, then you have to include the effect of cold weather and rain on scoring at Riviera this year.

[Jason Topp]

A follow up to my last post, here are the rankings of the top 10 in scoring average in 1980:

Lee Trevino  67 (distance)/12 (accuracy)
Tom Watson  24/57
Jerry Pate  30/62
Andy Bean 29/43
Keith Fergus 15/21
Mike Reid  171/1
Jack Nicklaus  10/13
Curtis Strange 98/19
Ben Crenshaw 68/79
Tom Kite  122/21

Median
49 - distance (1/2 way between 30 and 67)
21 - accuracy

[Kevin_Reilly]

Re: Mike Reid ...if memory serves, he teed off with a 4 wood most of the time.

[George Pazin]

A follow up to my last post, here are the rankings of the top 10 in scoring average in 1980:

Lee Trevino  67 (distance)/12 (accuracy)
Tom Watson  24/57
Jerry Pate  30/62
Andy Bean 29/43
Keith Fergus 15/21
Mike Reid  171/1
Jack Nicklaus  10/13
Curtis Strange 98/19
Ben Crenshaw 68/79
Tom Kite  122/21

Median
49 - distance (1/2 way between 30 and 67)
21 - accuracy

Interesting stats.

What strikes me, when I look at this list, is that there is a pretty good variety of styles, as opposed to the list of recent top money winners, where distance appears to have a greater role in determining one's success. The median stat almost seems meaningless in the older example, but not the newer example, which implies to me that golf is becoming more standardized and less interesting.

[Jim Nugent]

The relative rankings are interesting, but don't matter much.  More important are absolute numbers.  How many fairways did they hit, how long did they drive it?  

So the most revealing numbers in this thread to me are Stadler's and Reid's accuracy numbers.  They are only slightly better than the players who hold the 1st and 114th positions now.  79.5% and 60.2% in 1980 vs 78.3% and 56.5% now.

That means players overall today are about as accurate as they were in 1980, judging by actual fairways hit.  

But as we know, they are all a whole lot longer.  Woods hit the ball 50 yards further on average last year than Watson did in 1980.  Six or seven clubs less into a similar length hole.    

I also think that both the relative accuracy rankings and the percentages greatly overstate the real differences.  Watson ranked 57th in 1980, and hit 65.5% of fairways.  Figuring 14 drives per round, that comes to 9.17 fairways hit.  Tiger was 188th last year -- sounds way, way worse -- yet his average was 54.6%.  That translates to 7.64 fairways hit per round.  

On average Watson hit 1.5 fairways more per round.  Not a big difference.  In each four-round tournament, Tiger only had to hit from off the fairway six times more than Watson did.  He was in the short grass almost as much as Tom was.  

And Tiger was 50 yards further down the fairway, or rough when he missed.  

I think if anything, the stats suggest driving overall doesn't matter as much as it used to.  More "short" players are among the top ten scorers than in 1980 -- Furyk averaged 36 yards less than Tiger, and Donald averaged 32 yards less -- and more "wild" players are, too.  

BTW, last year on Champions Tour Watson averaged 278.8 off the tee, and hit 70.1% of all fairways.  I have to believe Tom in his prime with today's equipment would hit it well over 300.  

[Doug Sobieski]

With apologies to Kip Dynamite:

"You know I love technology.
But not as much as golf you see.
But still I love technology.
Always and forever.
Always and forever."

Mike

Mike:

I can't believe you didn't get a chuckle out of anyone with that!! I bet you that even with old technology, Uncle Rico could hit a golf ball over those mountains.  

All the best,

Doug

[Jason Topp]

On average Watson hit 1.5 fairways more per round.  Not a big difference.  In each four-round tournament, Tiger only had to hit from off the fairway six times more than Watson did.  He was in the short grass almost as much as Tom was.  

A couple of responses:

1.  1.5 fairways per round equates to 6 per tournament, I think that is a huge difference in a game where a 1 stroke difference in scoring average is the difference between a very good player and an average player is about a stroke per round.

2.  Put another way, the difference is in the area of 20%.

[Jim Nugent]

Jason -- I'll trade 50 yards for 1.5 fairways all day long.  That means I'm hitting nine iron where my opponent must hit 2 or 3 iron.    A huge advantage from the fairway -- where I still am nearly as often as the other guy.  From the rough, where the more accurate player still spends plenty of time, there is no way he can get his 3 iron inside my wedge.  

[JESII]

I've read a good bit, but not all, of this thread so please forgive me if I repeat something My question is, where do maintenance and conditioning enter this argument? I'll tell you what, if you give Tiger a golf course set-up that rewards fairways and positioning because of the firmness of the turf he'll sacrifice 20 or 30 yards to pick up those 6 fairways per tournament, I promise that. The whole mindset of the FLOGGERS change when the greens (and surrounds) demand positioning and ball control. If tournament organizers took that mindset when "tigerproofing" we'd see much better golf, and you know what, Tiger would win at least as much as he does now.

[DMoriarty]

That's odd, when i looked at some players come through #4 on Friday they were hitting 2 irons and utility woods. A 2 iron from Freddie Couples who is definitely on the long end of the spectrum of tour pros.

"I just find the statements of "gloom and doom" that seem so pervasive on this thread and elsewhere on this board to be a bit thick at times. More importantly, THEY ARE NOT BACKED UP BY THE FACTS!"

David Tepper:

Thank you very much for that---I second that notion.

For David Tepper and those who agree with him:

There are plenty of supporting facts, on this thread and elsewhere.  

But what additional facts would it take to convince you?   Or is it like Bogey implied back on page 1 of this thread . . . Do you simply "refuse to believe the sky is falling" despite the evidence.  

[Jason Topp]

Jamie:

Although it is a single tournament, the US Open last year at Pinehurst would probably fit your ideal.  

The statistics tend to support your thought that course set up changes the reward for hitting the fairway:

Of the top 10, there were a wide variety of long, short, accurate and inaccurate players.  The median fairways hit rank was 55%, or 36th out of 82 (one fairway better than average for the field).

With respect to driving distance, the median was 297 yards or 17th out of 82.  Those rankings are quite a bit closer than the overall numbers.

Woods, Singh and Carcia were closer to average than they are normally, Woods hitting 2 less than the median, Garcia one more than the median, and Singh, 3 less than the median.

Woods' distance advantage over the median was 33 yards.  Cambell was very close to the median in his driving distance and hit 8 more fairways than Woods.

http://www.usopen.com/2005/news/2005_USOpen.pdf

[Jim Nugent]

Jamie:

Although it is a single tournament, the US Open last year at Pinehurst would probably fit your ideal.  

The statistics tend to support your thought that course set up changes the reward for hitting the fairway:

Of the top 10, there were a wide variety of long, short, accurate and inaccurate players.  The median fairways hit rank was 55%, or 36th out of 82 (one fairway better than average for the field).

With respect to driving distance, the median was 297 yards or 17th out of 82.  Those rankings are quite a bit closer than the overall numbers.

Woods, Singh and Carcia were closer to average than they are normally, Woods hitting 2 less than the median, Garcia one more than the median, and Singh, 3 less than the median.

Woods' distance advantage over the median was 33 yards.  Cambell was very close to the median in his driving distance and hit 8 more fairways than Woods.

http://www.usopen.com/2005/news/2005_USOpen.pdf

Sorry if I seem so contrarian, Jason, but I believe the stats paint a different picture of last year's U.S. Open.  Even though Woods hit less fairways than Campbell, he led the field in GIR.  54, if my memory serves.  Campbell hit something like 13 or 14 fewer greens.  Tiger lost because he was the 2nd-worst putter statistically.  Had he just putted average, he would have run away with the tournament.  

 

[Jason Topp]

Jim - No problem being contrarian.  This is not curing cancer.

You certainly point out a contrary conlcusion that could be reached by the numbers.  I went with generalizations because it can always be the case that an individual performance is different than the general trend.  

I'm trying to figure out your viewpoint - do you think technology has given long crooked drivers a bigger advantage than in the past?  I think it has.  I think the numbers back that up.

Do you view that change as positive, negative or neither?  My view is that it is negative but people could certainly have different perspectives on that issue.

Both of those points leave aside the question of whether technology should be reined in to preserve the challenge of classic courses.  My inclination is that we would be wise to do so, but I think the issue is very open to debate.  I recall one player saying "Who cares if we can't hold a US Open at Merion?"  To me, that is an entirely valid viewpoint, just not one I subscribe to.

A final justification for reigning back driving distance is the vast difference that now exists between driving distance for the professionals and the average player.  I view that issue as one of personal taste upon which reasonable minds may differ.

[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

I totally acknowledge the statistics that players are driving the  ball longer and that hitting the fairways is no longer the "priority" it once was.

(As an aside, it would be interesting to compare the width of fairways on the PGA Tour today with the width of fairways on the Tour 30 years ago. My guess is fairways are appreciably narrower, which might also help explain why more players are missing them!)

While you and others may want to obsess about stats like that, I would prefer to see who is being competitive in golf tournaments.

2005 Masters - top 10 finishers included Di Marco, Immelman, Hensby, Clark, Weir, Donald  
2005 Players Championship - top 10 finishers included Funk, Durant, Donald, Lehman, Verplank  
2005 US Open - top 10 finishers included M. Campbell, Clark, Hensby, Mediate, Price, Oberholser (Estes & Pavin tied with 2 others for 11th!)
2005 British Open - top 10 finishers included Montgomerie, Couples, Olazaball, M. Campbell, Langer
2005 PGA - Elkington, M. Campbell, Hart, Flesch, Toms, Purdy

Over HALF the top 10 finishers in the 5 most important golf tournaments in the world last year were either hitters of modest length, players of modest size or over the age of 40.  

That is more than enough, in my mind at least, to establish that "the sky is not falling" and to prove there is a whole lot more to posting a low golf score than being 6'3" and driving the ball 320 yards.

DT

 


   

[DMoriarty]

Over HALF the top 10 finishers in the 5 most important golf tournaments in the world last year were either hitters of modest length, players of modest size or over the age of 40.  

Players of modest length, players of modest size, or players over the age of 40?  Throw in right-handed players and you can probably get that up to over 90%.  

My point is that by combining these three categories, you've covered a very large percentage of the tour.   Moreover, you've included categories which have little to do with the topic at hand: distance.  Some old guys can hit it far because they have very fast swing speeds.  Some little guys can hit it far for the same reason.  The short hitters . . . well you understand what I am saying.   So why not focus on the short hitters, since we are talking about distance?   My guess is that if you do your number will drop to somewhere below HALF.  

And of those left, which short hitters are consistently up there in the tournaments?  

That is more than enough, in my mind at least, to establish that "the sky is not falling" and to prove there is a whole lot more to posting a low golf score than being 6'3" and driving the ball 320 yards.

One need not be 6'3" at all.  Just hitting the ball 320 yards will suffice.  

[David_Tepper]

DMoriarty -

As is often the case on this site, a thread can start on one topic and then incorporate a number of issues along the way.

While this thread did start about the distance "problem," topics such as whether players over 40 could compete on the Tour and whether players of modest length and physical stature (such as Player & Trevino) could compete in today's game did crop up along the way. My prior post was made to, at the very least, provide some facts to answer some of the theories and questions that have been raised earlier on this thread.  

As I have said on a least one prior thread, I feel tournament golf is, first and foremost, a competition between the players. It is not a competition between the players and the golf course or between today's players and "history." The winner gets the same trophy whether the winning score is -20 or +2 for the event. Some courses will reward power, others demand accuracy. It has always been and most likely always will be that way.  

Let me ask you this question - if we went back to wound balata balls and persimmon heads, do you think the world rankings would be appreciably different?  I don't think they would be.

DT

 


   

[George Pazin]

Let me ask you this question - if we went back to wound balata balls and persimmon heads, do you think the world rankings would be appreciably different?  I don't think they would be.

This is actually a fascinating question, one that I hope you won't mind if I steal for a thread topic.

My quick answer: the composition might not be appreciably different, but the actual golf would be more interesting.

[DMoriarty]

Those that brought up older and smaller players did so because they assume that these types of players generally hit it shorter.  Fortunately, we have the distance statistics and therefor have no need to rely on such imperfect approximations of distance such as age or size.  To do so would only clutter the issue.  

Let me ask you this question - if we went back to wound balata balls and persimmon heads, do you think the world rankings would be appreciably different?  I don't think they would be.
   

First let me say that I really don't give a hoot about professional tournament golf.   I only discuss on here it because of how it relates to architecture, and because the stats are readily available.  This may help you understand why I dont care one way or another whether the world rankings would be the same.  

I will say this, though  . . . If the rules you mentioned were enacted, then professional golf would be a lot more fun to watch and would require a much broader spectrum of skills to compete successfully.  More importantly, less of our great courses would be ruined.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

I'm trying to figure out your viewpoint -

do you think technology has given long crooked drivers a bigger advantage than in the past?  

One of the benefits of technology is that it's made long crooked drivers, long straight drivers.  

Ergo, an additional advantage.

And, I'll take Jim Nugent's position, put me 50 yards closer and I'll take my chances against my peers and superior players.[/color]

[Scott Cannon]

Maybe these gen x'ers or y'ers or whatever they are, rebelled against conventional wisdom that hitting fairways is more important than an extra 30. Perhaps they just love to bomb it and found out hitting fairways doesn't matter as much as the old-timers thought.
I know I would rather hit a 7 iron from the rough than a 4 iron from the fairway.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim - No problem being contrarian.  This is not curing cancer.

I'm trying to figure out your viewpoint - do you think technology has given long crooked drivers a bigger advantage than in the past?  

Jason, I'm not sure what the correct viewpoint is.  I spent 20 minutes checking the accuracy percentages each year going back to 1980.  (Anyone interested can get them at pgatour.com.)  I am completely convinced the tour as a whole is just as accurate now as it was in the early 1980's.  (1980 through 1985.)  Maybe even more so.  The percentage of fairways hit now is slightly higher than it was back then, for the field as a whole.  

It's true that compared to then, the past few years have seen more longer/less accurate players at the top of the scoring/money lists.  But there are more shorter players at the top as well.  Last year Furyk, Dimarco, Funk, Toms and Bryant finished in the top 11 money winners.  None was in the top 100 in driving distance.  They averaged more than 30 yards less than Tiger.  

So recently, longer drivers have been rewarded and shorter drivers have been rewarded.  What is the conclusion?  

This is not the first time longer/less accurate players have done well.  In the early 1990's, Fred Couple and Davis Love were two dominant players.  Freddie never was among the top 100 in accuracy.  Davis was -- sometimes.  Craig Stadler sprayed, relatively speaking, and won big.  

It takes over 7 percentage points difference to hit one extra fairway per round.  So the guy who hits 70% is in the fairway one extra time per round on average, compared to the guy who hits 63%.  That's nice, but no huge benefit.  Tiger was a little over 8 percentage points behind the median on tour last year.   So he missed a little over one extra fairway compared to the field (which itself was more accurate statistically than in 1980 through 1985).  I don't see that as all that wild.    

Finally, of the top 20 long drivers last year on tour, only 4 were in the top ten money winners.  This suggests flogging, at least as I understand it, is greatly overrated.  It takes a much more complete all-around game to be among the best players on tour.  As always.  

On cancer: you brought that up graciously.  It did make me think it's a shame there are not more contrarian viewpoints there.  Maybe we would make some real progress against it if there were.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()