[Mike Sweeney]

Steve Stricker is now the effective #1 player in the world and he is currently ranked #62 in driving distance;

http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/xm.html?101

and #6 in Total driving, which incorporates fairways hit;

http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/xm.html?129

Over the weekend, I played with a long driver of the ball and on a number of holes he had "Sully" length and was 40-50 yards past me when I really caught one and I was the #2 ball in the group on one hole playing with a 3rd and 4th players in the group who are long and average respectively.

He simply had a better and more athletic swing than mine, and he had more "core" strength to generate clubhead speed.

I can shoot free throws better than Shaquille O'Neil, yet I have never played in the NBA.

Scoring wise, I can probably beat my long driving partner 3-4 times out of ten.

Steve Stricker is going to beat Bubba Watson 7-8 times out of 10.

Okay the ball should not get any longer but why are we thinking about penalizing the better athlete by "rolling back the ball" when distance is only one piece of the game?

[Tom_Doak]

penalizing the better athlete

Did Callaway make you an offer you couldn't refuse?


The whole point of the ball debate is to preserve a balance between the different skills that constitute golf. 

Hitting the ball consistently solidly is one of those skills.  But it's all relative ... if you roll back the ball 10%, you are only going to cost the long hitter 1 yard of the advantage he has on the other guy.  The gain is that each of them is going to face a longer approach shot and we can see who is the better athlete in that department.

There are probably 1,000 guys who can drive it further than the #1 player in the world ... and I doubt that was true in Jack Nicklaus' day.  But that doesn't make any of them better athletes than Jack.

[Tom_Doak]

P.S.  Are those stats all from 2010, or from last year?  Because if they are 2010, the USGA is going to start taking credit for making driving accuracy important again, in spite of whatever Phil Mickelson is saying.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
From an earlier thread:

Using the average of the group of top 10 money winners in 1980 would place them 55th in accuracy and 63rd in distance.
The top 10 group in 2009 would rank 53rd in accuracy, a minor change, but 43rd in distance, quite a bit better than in 1980. That  seems to suggest that distance has become much more important in the quest for money.

Additionally, Dr Steven Otto, the Director for Research/Testing for the R&A has said:

"...in the 1980s, about 50% of a golfer's earnings could be credited to accuracy from the tee. By the 1990s, that figure had fallen to 25% and currently it is running at as little as 5%. As a result, there is concern that brute force in golf is taking over from skill.'


,,,,,,,,,,,That's a good reason.

[Ronald Montesano]

Faulkner, paging William Faulkner...random thoughts/stream of consciousness thread...Jack Handey?

You can't shoot anything better than Shaquille O'Neal.  That is the arrogance of the amateur, especially the one who has never flown as high as Icarus.

Now I see the point of the thread...I think.

My thoughts...the ball doesn't do that much for the amateur, as we don't compress it enough to gain the true worth.  Find the average amateur and you'll see someone who might be 10-15 yards closer than thirty years ago...that's one club.  Is the amateur going to make that many more pars and birdies with 5 iron than 4 iron?  With gap wedge versus pitching wedge?  N and O.

I loved watching misplayed wedges zip off Riviera's greens last week.  That's one way to defend against long-hitting pros.

[Mike Benham]

P.S.  Are those stats all from 2010, or from last year?  Because if they are 2010, the USGA is going to start taking credit for making driving accuracy important again, in spite of whatever Phil Mickelson is saying.

Those stats are for the 2010 year, 24 whole drives measured, 3 tournaments, one raining slogfest and two tournaments in Hawaii, with trade winds and hilly conditions.

[Mike Sweeney]

P.S.  Are those stats all from 2010, or from last year?  Because if they are 2010, the USGA is going to start taking credit for making driving accuracy important again, in spite of whatever Phil Mickelson is saying.

Those stats are for the 2010 year, 24 whole drives measured, 3 tournaments, one raining slogfest and two tournaments in Hawaii, with trade winds and hilly conditions.

Mike

Stricker was 286 and tied for 104th for all of 2009 for driving distance:

http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/xm.html?101

The point is Stricker is not that long and yet he is #1. So should we (all of golf) turn back the ball because of 1000 players that are longer than the world's #1?

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Stricker's speed is 110-- below the tour average-- so for you guys out there concerned with speed here is your example that you better be making center contact and solid short game before bitching about your length.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Stricker gets up and down from off the green 66.46 perecent of the time the average is 57.52 on tour. This is from golf magazine.

[Deucie Bies]

I would gladly trade 10-20 yards or more for a better short game.  Especially after observing some of the people I played with this past weekend. 

[Greg Murphy]

 Mike,

I don't get how the better athlete is penalized by rolling back the ball. The long hitter will always gain the advantage of shorter next shots, regardless of the total distance travelled. The distance the ball is hit today has reached the tipping point of the absurd. If we were to start over, and were designing the game from scratch, no one would suggest the ball be made so that it could be hit, literally, out of sight. Part of golf's allure is the scale of its playing grounds. Big is good. But so is being able to see the trajectory and roll of the projectile from start to finish. When the object of our attention is allowed to exceed the ability to clearly follow that object from start to finish, the experience is diminished (though I'm a fan of the odd blind tee shot, go figure).

[Rob Rigg]

Penalize the bomber by making the clubhead smaller - 300 cc would probably do it

Guys like Norman, Faldo, Nicklaus etc. who could crush the ball with persimmon heads earned their distance advantage - the benefit of a "perfect" strike with driver has been minimized.

The ball will make classic courses relevant but it will not promote skill over strength - eh?

[Brad Swanson]

Stricker can roll the rock (and wet a mean tissue too).

Brad

[Tim Pitner]

Penalize the bomber by making the clubhead smaller - 300 cc would probably do it

Guys like Norman, Faldo, Nicklaus etc. who could crush the ball with persimmon heads earned their distance advantage - the benefit of a "perfect" strike with driver has been minimized.

The ball will make classic courses relevant but it will not promote skill over strength - eh?

Sorry to quibble Rob, but Faldo was not a long hitter, despite his size.  As I recall, he was a medium length hitter for a time and then got progressively shorter as he emphasized precision more and more.  I believe Faldo said something about not being able to adjust to the bomb and gouge game, which hastened the end of his playing days.  This doesn't diminish your argument--Faldo won 6 majors with that game--something I really doubt one could do now. 

[Phil McDade]

I've long thought distance is over-rated in evaluating quality play, and putting under-rated, even in today's bomb-it world. Think of the players who have been truly dominant for periods of time -- not just Woods and Jack, but Arnie, Watson, Trevino, Seve, Faldo, even Nick Price for a year or two in the mid-1990s -- and they all had great runs with their putters.

Stricker is probably the best clutch putter in the game today. That's not entirely why he's moved up effectively to #1 in the world (his driving accuracy is arguably just as important, and he has become Lanny Wadkins-esque in terms of shooting at flags with short irons), but it's central. Look at the demise of some players like Singh -- struggles with putting often are the first sign of significant trouble. Tiger loses majors he can win (Hazeltine a prime example) because he can't sink putts. Watson stopped winning majors in his mid-30s because he couldn't make putts. Arnold Palmer....well, the list is a long one.

[Rob Rigg]

Tim,

I should have just left it at Norman and Nicklaus - my bad.

Peeps,

Is it fair to say that "bomb and gouge" can make you some money but will never get you to the top of the World Rankings - ie) putting and short game is vital to succeed in those Top 10ish spots in the world?

Tiger and Phil can both kill it but their short games and putting (along with Stricker's) are the best out there.

But still, it would be a lot more interesting IMO to watch the skilled guys compete for wins week in and week out - seeing a 5 iron hit to 5 to 10 feet is a lot more impressive than a gap wedge.

[George Pazin]

Are they going to start tearing up courses and greens to Stricker-proof golf?

[Tim Nugent]

Rob, don't think Phil got the Memo Sunday about being a great putter 

[Wade Whitehead]

What does it say that the #2 player in the world has never won a major?  Anything?

WW

[M. Shea Sweeney]

It means he's going to win one soon.

[Sean Eidson]

What about the fact that Scott Hend, Hank Keuhne, etc, have fallen off the face of the planet?

Yes, it's more impressive to see someone hit a 5 iron than a wedge.  But it's also impressive to see them hit the ball 330 yards such that he has a wedge instead of a 5 iron.  And when they miss, there's a much more exciting recovery shot in the making.

Doesn't anyone think that shot TW hit on #13 at Doral that carried 275 yards of water was one of the cooler shots to watch on TV?  Would it have been better to see Corey Pavin hit 3 wood - 8 iron?

I know I'm in the minority here, but I appreciate the superior distance I watch on TV - it's cool to see and I don't begrudge them the ability to do that.  Just like I don't begrudge Andy Roddick's 140 MPH serve.  I've also come to appreciate a point of view that allows for two versions of the equipment rule.  The elite players can play with V grooves, steel shafts, and if it comes to it, persimmon woods.  They would still hit the ball 20-40% further than me.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Mike,

I don't get how the better athlete is penalized by rolling back the ball. The long hitter will always gain the advantage of shorter next shots, regardless of the total distance travelled. The distance the ball is hit today has reached the tipping point of the absurd. If we were to start over, and were designing the game from scratch, no one would suggest the ball be made so that it could be hit, literally, out of sight. Part of golf's allure is the scale of its playing grounds. Big is good. But so is being able to see the trajectory and roll of the projectile from start to finish. When the object of our attention is allowed to exceed the ability to clearly follow that object from start to finish, the experience is diminished (though I'm a fan of the odd blind tee shot, go figure).

Beautifully put Greg.   

Mike next time you have to walk 60 yards past the tee used by 0.1% of all the golfers in the world, in order to tee it up yourself ,you might reflect on all the cost, time and damage the modern ball flight has done  to golf.  Let the best strikers keep their advantage but roll the ball back, for everyone.

[Rob Rigg]

Sean,

I would rather see Tour Pros playing on classic courses (mostly because I would love to see more classic courses on TV that haven't been ruined by adding yardage and other crap) than Tiger or JB bomb the ball 300 yards from the fairway to a green on a par 5.

There is little strategy to a 300 yard drive and a 275 yard 3 wood, or a 300 yard drive and a wedge.

Watching golf on obsolete courses is boring - and making great courses not obsolete for the pros is a waste of resources.

[Tim Gavrich]

Perhaps there is less strategy in hitting a 275 yard 3 wood, but there is a ton of raw skill in it, and I don't see the problem with rewarding that.

I know that golf balls are longer and more forgiving today than they were 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago.  That's fair enough.  But I don't think that the ball is the be-all-end-all of the problems.  Professional golfers today are so much more toned because they work out 5-6 times a week and generally are more trim than the pros of yesterday were.  There are very few guys out there today who just practice and play and get by without lifting and doing all kinds of aerobic exercises.  There are fewer guys who smoke, drink heavily, etc.  Skinnier, shorter players are able to bomb it over 300 yards when it was mostly the brawny-built Nicklauses who hit it the furthest.  The lifestyle of the average Tour pro has changed along with his equipment, has it not?

Second, I still believe that a 7,000 yard course can challenge the pros.  At 6,850 and par 70, TPC River Highlands does it very often--only in years when the golf course is especially wet are scores especially low.  Harbour Town is the same way.  I am not expecting the Greenbrier to give up lower scores than the longer courses this year.  Those courses are never going to play any easier than courses like Redstone, which is about 7,500 yards, par 72.  If the PGA Tour weaned itself off of powder-puff long-ball-paradise courses, I think the woes about course lengths getting out of control would decrease.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()