[Dan Boerger]

John - I'll be at the US Open on Saturday and will let you know who I see working on what at the practice range! All kidding aside, I fully agree that unless you get the ball in the fairway off the tee with consistency you won't be winning this thing.

[Peter Pallotta]

John
I have to admit that for years I believed that the ability to hit a driver long and straight was the 2nd best test/gauge of a tour player's talent (that's why I thought Norman was terrific); and that it was 2nd only to the ability to hit a 1 iron high and long and straight (that's why I thought Nicklaus was the best...though admitting I hadn't seen Sneed, Hogan, Nelson and Jones).

But, watching Tiger's career (and stats with the driver) and watching what he did at Hoylake....well, I don't know anything anymore.

By the way, I think your recent 'realization' is a very neat and good way to put this, i.e.  

"....You guys can not deal with being told how far to hit the ball...I guess you really don't love wide either if you don't get enough of it.  You just don't like being told what to do...."

Peter

edit: SL - another fine post in a long line of fine posts by you.  

[redanman]

The longest driver
The straightest driver
The player with the best "Combined Driving" statistic

None of these will win at Oakmont.  Call the oddsmaker  NOW! See if you can get that bet.

The best scrambling player may or may not win.  The player who overcomes adversity repeatedly and the best might, but certainly should be rewarded with the trophy.  Whether or not the USGA setup will allow that is to be seen.

There is no greater feat than redemption, will O(USG)Akmont allow that?  Will we just see a bunch of hack-outs?  God I hope not, in so many ways I dread this USGA Open.

[John Kavanaugh]

Bill,

I appreciate your sense of home.  As an Illinoisan I can only dream what might have been if the USGA had not cut down the rough at Olympia Fields.

[Phil Benedict]

Ogilvy had an interesting take on why someone like him who is not known as a straight driver can still win the Open.  He said that everybody misses fairways in the Open because they are so tight.  He, and other erratic drivers, are used to playing out of the rough, whereas its less familiar territory for straight hitters.

[Michael Blake]

Was is Bobby Jones who said, "Golf is a game played between the space between your ears."


Maybe no greater test of using your brain than in a US Open.  


The golfer who can best show PATIENCE and RESTRAINT, and capitalize on OPPORTUNITY will prevail.


EXECUTION doesn't hurt either.


but to answer your quesiton...no i do not think placing more emphasis on ONE specific talent (accurate driver) over all others is the ideal way to determine the best.  my approach would be playing on a course that balances ALL shot values and is the best mental test.  whether or not the USGA needs to "set the course" up to play that way is another question.

...but i think the USGA agrees with you.

[John Kavanaugh]

What talent does a tight course not test?  The ability to hit around a tree out of short grass is the only talent I can think of that may not be tested this week.

[Bob_Huntley]

Question.

I have played with some of the good players on this site and sometimes marvel at the length that they achieve. Bill V.,  Joel Stewart, John Van Der B., Dave Wigler, Brian Noser and Mark Arata et al., but I wonder about one thing. Has their scoring average declined since they started using the souped up ball and magical equipment?

I have been reminded by our correspondent at the Yahoo Sports Desk, that the legendary Matt Ward could give them all twenty yards and blow it by them. Matt has your index impoved over the years?

Bob

[Michael Blake]

Posted by: John Kavanaugh
What talent does a tight course not test?

I agree with you.  A tight course can test all golf shots.  It's just that it also makes some more important than others.

Posted by: John Kavanaugh
You just don't like being told what to do.

I know the above was a general statement you made but:

When it's the USGA telling me, then no.
When it's the architect, then yes.
Seems that in US Opens it's always the USGA telling.

[JESII]

I will throw in with Mr. Huntley on this one...I'll even go so far as to suggest that it was/would be easier to hit a US Open fairway with a 43 inch persimmon driver and wound ball than the rocket science equipment we're using today...

[John Kavanaugh]

Posted by: John Kavanaugh
What talent does a tight course not test?

I agree with you.  A tight course can test all golf shots.  It's just that it also makes some more important than others.

Posted by: John Kavanaugh
You just don't like being told what to do.

I know the above was a general statement you made but:

When it's the USGA telling me, then no.
When it's the architect, then yes.
Seems that in US Opens it's always the USGA telling.

Michael,

Are you saying you like it when the architect tells you how you have to play a hole?  You are not in the multiple options camp?  I personally like the tee shot on the 12th at Torrey Pines South...One option...long and straight...I thought I was out on a limb on this one.

[Michael Blake]

John,

My intention was more toward implying that I did not favor the USGA dictating the "intent," or "strategy" of a hole or a tee shot.

I prefer holes to be played as the the architect intended, whether options are provided or not.  Rather than be decided by the USGA.

Personally, I like a good mix, say 65.7% options 34.3% no options.  While I love options (what mid-handicapper wouldn't?), I also like the occasional brazeness of the architect who tells you, "here it is...your only play...have a go at it!"

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside -
though it didn't seem to surprise anyone but me, I raised in another thread the fact that the 1919 US Amateur at Oakmont appeared to have been 'set-up' just like a modern- day US Open course. Here's a quote describing Oakmont in 1919 (written by Walter Travis, I think):

"The number of traps on the holes and the narrowness of the fairways made straightness imperative, a feature which was lacking at Detroit, that other extended and lengthy course where the championship in 1915 was played....[And] there was rough everywhere, except in the fairway and it was the intertwining sort which makes it difficult to play a shot any distance. In a word....there never was a championship in this country held on a course which could be regarded as an equal to Oakmont, which is praise indeed. Whoever was responsible for the excellencies of the course deserves the highest sort of praise..."

Peter

[SL_Solow]

Jes; The ball goes straighter and the clubs are more forgiving on off center hits.  The difference is that the emphasis has shifted to length because of the current bomb and gouge mentality that works most weeks.  When you are relatively indifferent to hitting fairways because you can hit wedges out of normal rough and hold the typical green, its hard to change your swing for 1 week.  As far as the average handicap player, our handicaps are usually functions of flaws that can't be fixed by equipment.  Additionally, many courses are adjusting to the new equipment thus setting off the incremental gains obtained by the typical player.

Barney;  The best courses offer variety.  Requiring a particular tee shot or approach shot (carry over water) is an apprpriate test so longer as there is some alternative for the player who is incapable of the required shot.  Its fine if the alternative costs that player a shot absent a difficult recovery.  But I agree with the previous poster who suggests a variety of tests to provide for a variety of challenges.  On balance I prefer holes that provide options.  The best are those where the options are distinct and the risk reward ratio does not make one option easily superior.  Anything that provides for a combination of thought and execution is superior as a test that emphasizes one aspect over the other.

[Paul Stephenson]

John - Interesting question ... does a drive need to be hit with a driver? Wouldn't any tee shot to a par 4 or 5 be considered the drive.

None of the competitors this weekend care about being the best driver of the ball more than they do the lowest scorer.

Dan,

I don't think there is a competitor in the field working on their eight iron to four iron in preparation for this tournament.  It is all about driving the ball in play and then putting the ball in the hole.  The meat is on the outside of this bun.

Driving is a means to an end this week.  It's because they care about being the lowest scorer they are working on driving the ball.

[JESII]

Jes; The ball goes straighter and the clubs are more forgiving on off center hits.  The difference is that the emphasis has shifted to length because of the current bomb and gouge mentality that works most weeks.  When you are relatively indifferent to hitting fairways because you can hit wedges out of normal rough and hold the typical green, its hard to change your swing for 1 week.  As far as the average handicap player, our handicaps are usually functions of flaws that can't be fixed by equipment.  Additionally, many courses are adjusting to the new equipment thus setting off the incremental gains obtained by the typical player.

SL,

My belief, and argument, is that a driver 1.5 - 2 inches shorter provides more control and a ball that can be spun also provides more control. With todays equipment you aim down the middle and hope it doesn't float more than 15 yards off-line in either direction. With the old stuff you would know which way it's going to move and you aim for it...providing 30 yards width to hit the fairway. I have no science to back it up, just a belief that today's equipment makes it more difficult to control the ball off the tee, from that came the bomb-and-gauge approach so appropriately referred to as FLOG.

Obviously significant distance is the trade-off, and today's three woods are every bit as long as drivers 15 years ago so it's probably a moot point...

[SL_Solow]

JES;  I agree re the length of the driver.  Several "authorities" in the club fitting world argue for shorter shafts.  The larger club faces help make up for this effect.  As for the ball, less spin may limit the ability to curve the ball but it allows a player to hit it straighter and lessens the impact of wind.

[JESII]

I'd say it's debateable, but never going to be decided...whether or not it's easier for these guys to hit a fairway with an old persimmon and balata as compared to today's equipment.

Agreed though that their game strategy has changed substantially...

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm not sure it is the most difficult club to hit straight but it certainly may be the most difficult to hit straight under pressure.

[Doug Siebert]

My belief, and argument, is that a driver 1.5 - 2 inches shorter provides more control and a ball that can be spun also provides more control. With todays equipment you aim down the middle and hope it doesn't float more than 15 yards off-line in either direction. With the old stuff you would know which way it's going to move and you aim for it...providing 30 yards width to hit the fairway. I have no science to back it up, just a belief that today's equipment makes it more difficult to control the ball off the tee, from that came the bomb-and-gauge approach so appropriately referred to as FLOG.

Obviously significant distance is the trade-off, and today's three woods are every bit as long as drivers 15 years ago so it's probably a moot point...

That's a silly argument.  No one is forcing you to use a 45" driver, you could carry a 43" driver instead, or in addition to, your 45" driver.

How often do you use your 3W from the fairway?  However much accuracy you get from going to your 3W it shouldn't equal what you could achieve with a shorter driver since the face is so much larger and puts less sidespin on the ball.

If you want more loft to achieve a bit more backspin they make big heads up to 16 degrees.  Add a bit of weight to the head and you've essentially got a 3W head that's up to 460cc in size.  Or you are referring to working the ball?  You are obviously a much better player than me, so maybe a higher percentage of your sidespin is intentional rather than accidental like mine

[Matthew Mollica]

If the driver takes the most talent to hit straight and long, then isn't the best test to see who is the greatest golfer a tight course.

Surely you don't believe what you wrote JK....

If that's what proves who the best golfer is John, why are we even bothering to use a course? Why don't we just put all the pro golfers on a range, paint a few white lines from tee to back fence, and see who hits it longest and closest to the line? Half an hour and a few dozen balls should do each of them.

Matthew

[John Kavanaugh]

I believe that with a little research you will find that the winner of the driver challenge on the Big Break series always does well in the end.

After watching Oakmont yesterday I'm not convinced it fits what I would call tight.   Where is the intimidation in at most half shot penalties for errant drives?  Did anyone in the field lose a ball or incurr a stroke and distance penalty.  Oakmont is at most taught...as in a rope pulled firmly.

[JESII]

Doug Siebert,

I intended to make it clear that my position is one of those hypotheticals that will never be proven one way or another. I was referring to the guys in the US Open, and their attempts to hit fairways. I don't expect many of them to pull out an old persimmon and balata combo to test my argument...at least not enough of them to have a viable sample size...

In that light, however, I think most of the side spin on a ball is intentional so my position that working the ball across the entire width of a fairway would be advantageous to aiming down the middle and hoping for the best...

[JESII]

I believe that with a little research you will find that the winner of the driver challenge on the Big Break series always does well in the end.

Back to sleep, JK...you clearly had a long night...

[Mark Pearce]

I believe that with a little research you will find that the winner of the driver challenge on the Big Break series always does well in the end.

How stupid of us all not to consider The Big Break as an indication of what really counts in golf

After watching Oakmont yesterday I'm not convinced it fits what I would call tight.   Where is the intimidation in at most half shot penalties for errant drives?  Did anyone in the field lose a ball or incurr a stroke and distance penalty.  Oakmont is at most taught...as in a rope pulled firmly.

Were you watching the same coverage as I was?  Seemed to me that playing out of the rough was a lottery.  Even a strong player like VJ was finding it almost impossible.  I liked the coverage of Scott discussing a short shot from the rough over a bunker, where they basically agreed to "hope it comes out hot".  Seems to me the rough was a serious hazard and more likely than not to result in a dropped shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()