[Jonathan Cummings]

I was at a dinner last week at The Valley Club (Bill McB was there too). Our speaker was Jim Vernon - pres of the USGA. Vernon cited a rather interesting statistic.

In the early 1980s the PGA winners had a high correlation to (1) lowest number of putts and (2) highest driving accuracy. Today's PGA winners also have a high correlation to low number of putts but NO correlation to driving accuracy.

If a tour player wants to win now it does him no benefit to try to hit a fairway. Just hit it a long way.

JC

JC

[Gary Slatter]

Will changing of the grooves not make driving accuracy important again?  I think so.

[Adam Clayman]

How much is due to the anti-strategic nature of the modern courses the different eras represent? With no rough ANGC showed how a course could reward accuracy without dictating where to hit it. 

[Bill_McBride]

How much is due to the anti-strategic nature of the modern courses the different eras represent? With no rough ANGC showed how a course could reward accuracy without dictating where to hit it. 

I think Gary Slatter's onto the right answer, a lot of it is about the square grooves that will be outlawed. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

That's not quite true.

He still has to hit the green in regulation or better to have a birdie or eagle putt.

But, there's been general agreement to your premise, that's why the "bomb and gouge" method of play has thrived.

If you believe in the premise you put forth, then how can you argue with the USGA when they narrow fairways and grow the rough ?

[Dan Boerger]

Pat's right IMO ... the bigger issue is green in regulation. And let's not forget that missing a fairway off the tee can take on many forms and degrees.

[Steve Burrows]

In his (auto)biography "The Education of a Golfer," Sam Snead said something to the effect that he would rather have an 8-iron out of the rough than a 5-iron from the fairway. 

Now Snead is one of the greatest golfers of all time and he employed this tactic on a somewhat regular basis, no different than some guys today.  He clearly possessed the length, and the control he had with the shorter club to hit the green in regulation (even from the rough) seemed to often outweigh the peril of hitting tee shots accurately.  This concept made sense years ago, and it often still does.

...But then again, Snead also tanked the 1939 US Open on account of his lack of course management, so perhaps he's not the leading theorist on the subject.

[Anthony Fowler]

It is misleading to say that it does not benefit the player to hit the fairway.  Accuracy may appear to have no correlation, but it's my hunch that when you control for distance, accuracy does have a correlation.  For instance, looking at players who hit it roughly the same distance, or better yet looking at one player across a number of tournaments, I'm sure accuracy is highly correlated to score and tournament finish. 

If anyone has the data, I'd be happy to analyze it to see if this in fact is true.

[Ronald Montesano]

We've been down this thread before, discussing a very small percentage (professionals) of golfers.  We need to ask, does this affect the larger percentage (non-professionals) of golfers?  Does slower swing speed, less square face, and inconsistent club head pattern result in the same type of statistic?  I believe that, under pressure, a non-professional will find a way to let emotion dictate the result, not technology.

[George Pazin]

It is misleading to say that it does not benefit the player to hit the fairway.  Accuracy may appear to have no correlation, but it's my hunch that when you control for distance, accuracy does have a correlation.  For instance, looking at players who hit it roughly the same distance, or better yet looking at one player across a number of tournaments, I'm sure accuracy is highly correlated to score and tournament finish. 

If anyone has the data, I'd be happy to analyze it to see if this in fact is true.

This is what I suspect you're observing (correctly):

When folks such as Vernon analyze the data, they typically look at where a golfer's overall rankings lie in the various categories. What no one seems to notice is that the winners of ANY event typically rank at or near the top in ALL statistical categories for THAT event. In short, Joe Long Drive Tour Pro hits fairways in the weeks he wins, and misses them in the weeks he doesn't.

Then there's the misleading nature of the stats themselves. It seems like a gigantic difference to hear one guy hits 70% of his fairways and another hits 50%, but that's really just 3 fairways in a round. Miss in the right place, further down the fairway, and it's not that hard to overcome.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Anthony,
You can search out the statistics yourself, but in the end I think you'll find that a lob wedge from the rough yields twice as many birdies in 100 attempts than does a 7 iron from the fairway.

[Jon Wiggett]

Will changing of the grooves not make driving accuracy important again?  I think so.

Will the new rule apply to the driver?

[Garland Bayley]

It is misleading to say that it does not benefit the player to hit the fairway.  Accuracy may appear to have no correlation, but it's my hunch that when you control for distance, accuracy does have a correlation.  For instance, looking at players who hit it roughly the same distance, or better yet looking at one player across a number of tournaments, I'm sure accuracy is highly correlated to score and tournament finish. 

If anyone has the data, I'd be happy to analyze it to see if this in fact is true.

Isn't hitting the same distance irrelevant? The players are purposely giving up accuracy for distance. Few, if any players, can stay on tour if they are wild and as short as the "accurate" players.

[Jerry Kluger]

Perhaps Jim Vernon was making the point that in a regular tour event distance is extremely important but the USGA sets up the Open so that accuracy is important as well. I would guess that missing a high percentage of the fairways at Bethpage will not put a player up with the leaders. 

[Garland Bayley]

Will changing of the grooves not make driving accuracy important again?  I think so.

Will the new rule apply to the driver?

Why would anyone even want grooves on their driver? Maybe the USGA should require them!

[Jonathan Cummings]

Will changing of the grooves not make driving accuracy important again?  I think so.

Gary - this is exactly what Vernon suggested.  He told us that the modified grooves will seriously reduce the spin rate resulting in balls out of the rough bouncing on then off of greens. 

The accuracy of the drive will now become more important because approaches will have to land well short of the pins.  Players will need to program in roll in their distance calculations.

JC

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
Grooves on a driver, or any club less than 20*s of loft,  lessen the backspin. The reverse is true when lofts get over 40*.

[Kyle Harris]

Will changing of the grooves not make driving accuracy important again?  I think so.

Gary - this is exactly what Vernon suggested.  He told us that the modified grooves will seriously reduce the spin rate resulting in balls out of the rough bouncing on then off of greens. 

The accuracy of the drive will now become more important because approaches will have to land well short of the pins.  Players will need to program in roll in their distance calculations.

JC

This is the driving point behind the Ideal Maintenance Meld.

The idea is the golf course must play so firm that the player is in a constant struggle to get nothing longer than 8-iron in his hands on the approach in order to be able to throw darts.

Less spin + more firm = more wily golf.

Imagine a 80+ yard driving corridor where only a 20 yard sliver provides a viable approach angle.

[Ben Sims]

"Bomb and gouge" started before hot yet soft balls and razor sharp wedges right?  This is not anything new. 

[Bill_McBride]

Ben, I think successful bomb and gouge started with Vijay and them at Shinnecock, with the confluence of the out of control ball and the square grooves.

I'm not sure if Tiger is really a practitioner, as he seems to play best when he hits the odd fairway. 

[Ben Sims]

Mr. McBride,

As a 14 handicap that has length off the tee, I can assure you I would rather be in a match against a shorter competitor on a 7000+ layout.  I'd rather hit 9 iron from rough than 4 iron from fairway any day.

But the question of V grooves from rough is intriguing in it's simplicity.  Studies are showing almost no change in spin from short grass, but spin rates from rough seem to decrease almost 40%.  I think the field better adapt.

But driving accuracy--sorry to blast this thread--will ALWAYS be a function of winning.  Total Driving may have replaced that from years past.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mr. McBride,

As a 14 handicap that has length off the tee, I can assure you I would rather be in a match against a shorter competitor on a 7000+ layout.  I'd rather hit 9 iron from rough than 4 iron from fairway any day.

But the question of V grooves from rough is intriguing in it's simplicity.  Studies are showing almost no change in spin from short grass, but spin rates from rough seem to decrease almost 40%.  I think the field better adapt.

But driving accuracy--sorry to blast this thread--will ALWAYS be a function of winning. 

ONLY if PENAL golf features greet those who are inaccurate.

Altering the grooves won't have that much affect on the greatest golfers in the world.  They'll learn how to compensate for it by adjusting their technique and shots.


 Total Driving may have replaced that from years past.

[Jim_Kennedy]

But driving accuracy--sorry to blast this thread--will ALWAYS be a function of winning.  Total Driving may have replaced that from years past.

Long and wrong wins out. The correlation between winning and accuracy/total driving is almost meaningless. You won't see anyone who finishes high in those categories translating it into a high finish on the money list.
Just a for instance: Vijay topped the money list in '08 by hitting less than 2 out 3 fairways. Phil finished 3rd but hit just over half his fairways.

[Ben Sims]

I may need to bone up on this some more.  But don't the guys that miss and win, generally miss on the side they prefer to miss on for angles sake into the green? I really wouldn't consider missing the 11th at Augusta just into the right rough, with the preferred opening to that green as a miss.  Statistically it is, but it's still a "good miss" right?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ben,
You can say that's a good miss, but it's a different question altogether.
Finding yourself 60 yards from the green, in the rough, on the short side and with the skill of a Tour pro has proven more conducive to scoring than finding yourself 120 yards from the green, in the fairway, on the "A" side, also with the skill of a Tour pro.     
  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()