[Matthew Petersen]

again, what would Hogan do if it rained 4 days? quit?

Ben couldn't win or even come close at age 25 on a 30 or so man tour.
He went on to be a great ballstriker in his 30's.
If Rory is already this good-(outhitting his peers by many yards while driving it straight) why do you deny him the chance to improve as Hogan did.
he's already miles ahead of Hogan at 25.
Maybe Rory's prime is 10 years from now like Hogan's

It's the ball (and to a lesser extent, the equipment).

Rory has never had to face playing the ball Ben did. Rory will never have the chance to play the ball Ben did, and develop the skills Ben did.
Rory has his most significant advantage in wet conditions. E.g., Congressional, Liverpool, Valhalla.

Take Rory to a baked out Carnoustie, give him Ben's ball, and tell him to hit Hogan's alley four days in a row. Good Luck with that!

This is such a bizarre argument to me. Give Michael Jordan a Naismith era basketball and make him play to a peach basket with no backboard, and he'd also have very little luck the first time around. But since he was clearly the best player to come up in his time, it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have been the best if he'd come up in a different time, playing in those conniptions, with that equipment, etc.

Sam goes for Rory. It's useless to compare him to Hogan; as you point out, the game today is completely different. Hogan was the best in his time, Rory is poised to be at least among the best of his. That takes nothing away from either of them. If Rory had come up playing the game in the Hogan era, his talent could well have led him to be great with that equipment. Or maybe not. And maybe Hogan wouldn't have any advantage in the modern era. We can't really know, because the equipment (and the conditions, the travel, all of it) was so different as to have been a completely different game.

[Terry Lavin]

I have played Torrey Pines. Don't care to again. But I loved the Tiger Rocco Open. I wouldn't even bother with Valhalla but I found the PGA very enjoyable television despite the mud and the low scoring. I liked it a lot better than the Open at Merion that's for sure and I'm sure I'll love playing Merion. Entertainment in pro golf is sometimes delivered in bland packaging.

[BCowan]

Mark Brooks won in 96' and he avg. 259 off the tee in 1997.  So the course does prove to provide a shorter player a route to victory.  So you have to give it some more credit, which i don't like doing. 

http://databasegolf.com/players/playerpage.htm?samid=BrookMar01

[Matthew Petersen]

Mark Brooks won in 96' and he avg. 259 off the tee in 1997.  So the course does prove to provide a shorter player a route to victory.  So you have to give it some more credit, which i don't like doing. 

http://databasegolf.com/players/playerpage.htm?samid=BrookMar01

True. There course was about 300 yards shorter in 1996, which I must admit is less than I would have expected.

Also, Furyk and Kenny Perry both played well into the weekend there. So the course can reward play from non-bombers.

[Garland Bayley]

Brian,

I think he meant bought it as a venue, not purchased it.

All future major championships in the U. S. should be held at Chambers Bay. Time to do some catching up with that GA venue.

Again, the PGA Tour has nothing to do with Valhalla.

It all depends on the spelling of tour. (It all depends on what the meaning of is is. ) The PGA has a tour of courses for their championships. The PGA Tour has nothing to do with the PGA nor with the PGA Championship.

[Garland Bayley]

again, what would Hogan do if it rained 4 days? quit?

Ben couldn't win or even come close at age 25 on a 30 or so man tour.
He went on to be a great ballstriker in his 30's.
If Rory is already this good-(outhitting his peers by many yards while driving it straight) why do you deny him the chance to improve as Hogan did.
he's already miles ahead of Hogan at 25.
Maybe Rory's prime is 10 years from now like Hogan's

It's the ball (and to a lesser extent, the equipment).

Rory has never had to face playing the ball Ben did. Rory will never have the chance to play the ball Ben did, and develop the skills Ben did.
Rory has his most significant advantage in wet conditions. E.g., Congressional, Liverpool, Valhalla.

Take Rory to a baked out Carnoustie, give him Ben's ball, and tell him to hit Hogan's alley four days in a row. Good Luck with that!

This is such a bizarre argument to me. Give Michael Jordan a Naismith era basketball and make him play to a peach basket with no backboard, and he'd also have very little luck the first time around. But since he was clearly the best player to come up in his time, it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have been the best if he'd come up in a different time, playing in those conniptions, with that equipment, etc.

Sam goes for Rory. Is Sam gay? It's useless to compare him to Hogan; as you point out, the game today is completely different. Hogan was the best in his time, Rory is poised to be at least among the best of his. That takes nothing away from either of them. If Rory had come up playing the game in the Hogan era, his talent could well have led him to be great with that equipment. Or maybe not. And maybe Hogan wouldn't have any advantage in the modern era. We can't really know, because the equipment (and the conditions, the travel, all of it) was so different as to have been a completely different game.

You don't think the modern spinless ball rewards strength and youth as opposed to precision and experience?
I did not say Rory couldn't be great with Hogan equipment. I said he will never get the chance to perfect that type of talent, as he won't get the tools to develop it with.

[Jim Nugent]

It was a putting contest. Throw a dart and putt it.
They practically could have held it at a driving range with a green nearby.

The guy who struck the ball best (according to strokes gains statistics) won.  He came in 12th in putting. 

The guy who putted the best, again judged by strokes gained, came in 4th. 

You have a subtle mind at times, Garland, so I'm curious to hear how you reconcile the facts with your assertion. 

[Jon Wiggett]

The PGA Tour has nothing to do with the PGA nor with the PGA Championship.

Your right!!! The first id based in the US and the other two are based in the UK

[Garland Bayley]

It was a putting contest. Throw a dart and putt it.
They practically could have held it at a driving range with a green nearby.

The guy who struck the ball best (according to strokes gains statistics) won.  He came in 12th in putting. 

The guy who putted the best, again judged by strokes gained, came in 4th. 

You have a subtle mind at times, Garland, so I'm curious to hear how you reconcile the facts with your assertion. 

Have to wonder who came in 4th. Every standings I've seen doesn't have anyone.

Dubuisson matched Rory when you average the strokes gained category ranks except putting. But, he finished five strokes behind. Clearly it was a putting contest between him and Rory that he lost big time.

However, what you are talking about and my above example is a single data point (one tournament among many). The point is that if you do the statistics over an appropriate data set of like tournaments, putting will become more and more significant. Perhaps I should have written "virtually a putting contest", because it obviously wasn't absolutely a putting contest, which I thought people would understand.

Architects have been wanting to fight against a tendency to elevate the importance of putting for a long time. In the early years of golf architecture, they seriously considered dropping six greens from 18 hole courses to make the game more ball striking and less putting.

[Jason Thurman]

However, what you are talking about and my above example is a single data point (one tournament among many). The point is that if you do the statistics over an appropriate data set of like tournaments, putting will become more and more significant.

Two flaws:

1. Your premise is factually incorrect. The more you expand the data set, the more important ballstriking becomes. Mark Broadie has an entire book about this.

2. Your assertion was not that "golf is a putting contest," but that "the PGA Championship was a putting contest." So, in fact, the only relevant data point to your original position is the data from the PGA Championship, which handily rebukes your assertion.

[Jim Nugent]

It was a putting contest. Throw a dart and putt it.
They practically could have held it at a driving range with a green nearby.

The guy who struck the ball best (according to strokes gains statistics) won.  He came in 12th in putting. 

The guy who putted the best, again judged by strokes gained, came in 4th. 

You have a subtle mind at times, Garland, so I'm curious to hear how you reconcile the facts with your assertion. 

Have to wonder who came in 4th. Every standings I've seen doesn't have anyone.

Dubuisson matched Rory when you average the strokes gained category ranks except putting. But, he finished five strokes behind. Clearly it was a putting contest between him and Rory that he lost big time.

However, what you are talking about and my above example is a single data point (one tournament among many). The point is that if you do the statistics over an appropriate data set of like tournaments, putting will become more and more significant. Perhaps I should have written "virtually a putting contest", because it obviously wasn't absolutely a putting contest, which I thought people would understand.

Architects have been wanting to fight against a tendency to elevate the importance of putting for a long time. In the early years of golf architecture, they seriously considered dropping six greens from 18 hole courses to make the game more ball striking and less putting.

Garland, I think what you are really saying is that if two people strike the ball 1) the same, and 2) better than everyone else in the field, the one who putts better will probably win.  Seems like a truism, but doesn't address the issue of whether this tournament was simply a putting contest.   

[Wayne_Kozun]

You don't think the modern spinless ball rewards strength and youth as opposed to precision and experience?
I did not say Rory couldn't be great with Hogan equipment. I said he will never get the chance to perfect that type of talent, as he won't get the tools to develop it with.

Is Rory's game today that much different then Jack Nicklaus at the same age?  Wasn't his game one of youth and strength rather than the precision and experience of the wiley old veterans that were around circa 1962 like Hogan, Snead and Nelson (they were all about 50 when Jack turned pro).

[Garland Bayley]

You don't think the modern spinless ball rewards strength and youth as opposed to precision and experience?
I did not say Rory couldn't be great with Hogan equipment. I said he will never get the chance to perfect that type of talent, as he won't get the tools to develop it with.

Is Rory's game today that much different then Jack Nicklaus at the same age?  Wasn't his game one of youth and strength rather than the precision and experience of the wiley old veterans that were around circa 1962 like Hogan, Snead and Nelson (they were all about 50 when Jack turned pro).

Rory's game is much like Jack's game. At approximately that age Jack couldn't even hit a draw. When he saw that he needed one for Augusta, he began to work on developing one. Even given the same equipment as Ben, Jack did not develop skills of Ben. Jack went with his stock shot, the high fade, almost all the time.

[Garland Bayley]

...
2. Your assertion was not that "golf is a putting contest," but that "the PGA Championship was a putting contest." So, in fact, the only relevant data point to your original position is the data from the PGA Championship, which handily rebukes your assertion.

If you read carefully enough, I made indications that I was talking about tournaments played on excessively soft courses.
Therefore, if you can catch the implications of other things I wrote, you would notice the indication that dry courses would reduce the dependence on putting, and favor ball striking.

Now did Mr. Broadie separate his data out by weather conditions? Aren't most tournaments played in dry conditions?

[Garland Bayley]

Average strokes gained rank among top 12 players at PGA Championship.

Drive 28
Approach 25.25
Short 19.33
Putt 16.5833

So you see it was a virtual putting contest.

QED

[Nigel Islam]

Average strokes gained rank among top 12 players at PGA Championship.

Drive 28
Approach 25.25
Short 19.33
Putt 16.5833

So you see it was a virtual putting contest.

QED

I'm not following the fact that the cummulative? average strokes gained for the leaders was LOWEST in the putting category, and yet it was a virtual putting contest. Do you even know what putting is?

[Garland Bayley]

Average strokes gained rank among top 12 players at PGA Championship.

Drive 28
Approach 25.25
Short 19.33
Putt 16.5833

So you see it was a virtual putting contest.

QED

I'm not following the fact that the cummulative? average strokes gained for the leaders was LOWEST in the putting category, and yet it was a virtual putting contest. Do you even know what putting is?

Do you even know what rank is?
I think you didn't read my pithy post closely enough.

[Garland Bayley]

Let me put it another way, you couldn't finish 68th and 73rd in putting and finish in the top 12, but you could in driving.

[Nigel Islam]

Let me put it another way, you couldn't finish 68th and 73rd in putting and finish in the top 12, but you could in driving.

Ok gotcha. I missed where you had the word rank in there. I guess the thing is that having been at the tournament, the leaders and the field in general misses a ton of makeable putts. The eyeball test suggests Rory just hit it better than everyone else.

[Brent Hutto]

So if I understand your point correctly, it is necessary to putt well to win a major championship.

I'm gobsmacked. Never imagined such a thing could be true.

[Garland Bayley]

So if I understand your point correctly, it is necessary to putt well to win a major championship.

I'm gobsmacked. Never imagined such a thing could be true.

If the stats were done, wouldn't you find some tournaments where driving was most important, others where approach shots were most important, and even some where short game was most important?

Presumably Nick Faldo thinks putting was much less important when Ben Hogan played, or he wouldn't feel tournaments are turning more into putting contests than they were during Ben's time.

[Brent Hutto]

Lemme 'splain.

Big-time professional golf championships are putting contests among those who are hitting the ball really well that week.

Big-time professional golf championships are also ball striking contests among those who are putting really well that week.

Call it what you will, you have to hit the ball very well and putt very well to win a major championship. The fact that a few other players might be a tiny fraction better than the winner in any isolated stat does not affect the fact that you've got to do both well to win.

P.S. Don't engage in the same silly thinking that makes someone think their golf course's ranking moving from 33 to 36 between one magazine issue and the next says anything at all about the quality of their course.

[Garland Bayley]

Lemme 'splain.

Everyone knows what you are saying.


Which, brings up the question, why are you writing it?

[Brent Hutto]

Because saying something everyone knows is true beats saying something everyone knows is nonsense.

[cary lichtenstein]

So if I understand your point correctly, it is necessary to putt well to win a major championship.

I'm gobsmacked. Never imagined such a thing could be true.

I recall playing lousy one day and making lots of putts. When we got to the 19th hole, I added up my score, not once, but twice. I shot 70. I couldn't believe it. I think counted my putts, 20.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()