2015 ISPS Handa Women's Australian Open

[Argonne69]

[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424708207' post='11010473']
The LPGA is playing into the notion that younger winners = better for some reason (and I'm sure they have their reasons). Maybe it makes for better headlines or more marketing money but I don't think the quality of golf is #1 on their minds.
[/quote]

You keep saying "young winners", but there are very few young winners on tour. Even with Ms. Ko's wins, and a few by Ms. Thompson and Ms. Korda, the vast majority of wins are by seasoned players in their twenties. Given that the majority of women players join the tour after college, this makes sense. Yes, a handful of talented young players have made an impact on the tour, but statistically, it's a blip. You seem to be presenting a strawman argument.

[Argonne69]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424708530' post='11010505']
But if bigger and stronger ruined Tiger...... The physical demands on the LPGA will never be the same as on the PGA. And if it ever got close no one would watch it as it would be like the East German powerlifting team. IMO the LPGA is not competing really with the PGA, it is a different game. Like the WNBA to the NBA. A lot of folks on this forum recall the old days of shotmaking on the PGA tour with the old equipment and wish it would go back to that instead of the bomb and gauge mentality. Perhaps that is the LPGA niche.
[/quote]

Amen. If I want to watch the "power game", I'll tune into the PGA. I watch the LPGA because it resembles my game. Players are rewarded for driving accuracy, decent wedge play, and above average putting. When I see Ms. Ko hit a 5 hybrid 180 yards, hey, that's my game. Watching Ms. Park stick a gap wedge 3 feet from the pin from 90 yards sounds familiar. Having Ms. Lewis bury a putter into her bag, oh, wait.

Sure, watching the men nuke 215 yard 7 irons is interesting, but what do I gain from it?

[MelloYello]

[quote name='Argonne69' timestamp='1424709472' post='11010635']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424708530' post='11010505']
But if bigger and stronger ruined Tiger...... The physical demands on the LPGA will never be the same as on the PGA. And if it ever got close no one would watch it as it would be like the East German powerlifting team. IMO the LPGA is not competing really with the PGA, it is a different game. Like the WNBA to the NBA. A lot of folks on this forum recall the old days of shotmaking on the PGA tour with the old equipment and wish it would go back to that instead of the bomb and gauge mentality. Perhaps that is the LPGA niche.
[/quote]

Amen. If I want to watch the "power game", I'll tune into the PGA. I watch the LPGA because it resembles my game. Players are rewarded for driving accuracy, decent wedge play, and above average putting. When I see Ms. Ko hit a 5 hybrid 180 yards, hey, that's my game. Watching Ms. Park stick a gap wedge 3 feet from the pin from 90 yards sounds familiar. Having Ms. Lewis bury a putter into her bag, oh, wait.

Sure, watching the men nuke 215 yard 7 irons is interesting, but what do I gain from it?
[/quote]

That's not my point AT ALL.

It's not about how far you hit the 7-iron, it's about what you can do with it. I guess I'm just not convinced that with the course setups on the LPGA we're seeing the kinds of shot-making we do on the PGA where you have to hit that 7-iron with a draw, a fade, all sorts of trajectory/spin combinations.

Taking what I'm asking for and turning that into a request for "bomb and gouge" or "distance," now that's a straw man argument.


What I see on the LPGA is softer courses with relatively flat lies with relative open and receptive greens.

I would like all that to get a bit tougher so that these girls had to really work more seriously on their iron play.

That's not at all about distance. I'm perfectly fine if they aren't poking it out past 275.

[Argonne69]

[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424712270' post='11010941']
[quote name='Argonne69' timestamp='1424709472' post='11010635']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424708530' post='11010505']
But if bigger and stronger ruined Tiger...... The physical demands on the LPGA will never be the same as on the PGA. And if it ever got close no one would watch it as it would be like the East German powerlifting team. IMO the LPGA is not competing really with the PGA, it is a different game. Like the WNBA to the NBA. A lot of folks on this forum recall the old days of shotmaking on the PGA tour with the old equipment and wish it would go back to that instead of the bomb and gauge mentality. Perhaps that is the LPGA niche.
[/quote]

Amen. If I want to watch the "power game", I'll tune into the PGA. I watch the LPGA because it resembles my game. Players are rewarded for driving accuracy, decent wedge play, and above average putting. When I see Ms. Ko hit a 5 hybrid 180 yards, hey, that's my game. Watching Ms. Park stick a gap wedge 3 feet from the pin from 90 yards sounds familiar. Having Ms. Lewis bury a putter into her bag, oh, wait.

Sure, watching the men nuke 215 yard 7 irons is interesting, but what do I gain from it?
[/quote]

That's not my point AT ALL.

It's not about how far you hit the 7-iron, it's about what you can do with it. I guess I'm just not convinced that with the course setups on the LPGA we're seeing the kinds of shot-making we do on the PGA where you have to hit that 7-iron with a draw, a fade, all sorts of trajectory/spin combinations.

Taking what I'm asking for and turning that into a request for "bomb and gouge" or "distance," now that's a straw man argument.


What I see on the LPGA is softer courses with relatively flat lies with relative open and receptive greens.

I would like all that to get a bit tougher so that these girls had to really work more seriously on their iron play.

That's not at all about distance. I'm perfectly fine if they aren't poking it out past 275.
[/quote]

At the Swinging Skirts last year I don't recall a flat lie. 'Same goes for the Evian.

Obviously, the LPGA can't be particularly choosy when it comes to courses. They take what they can get. I'll agree that many courses are set up too easy, which is why this past tournament was fun to watch.

That said, the men get their share of pussycat courses, with winning scores of 20+ under par.

[AKL Kiwi]

[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424708207' post='11010473']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424707948' post='11010449']
It seems to me that since women develop at a younger age in all sports then what Ko is doing is roughly the equivalent of Spieth, Rory et al are doing on the PGA tour. The one thing I will add though is that the PGA tour is a bit deeper. If the LPGA did what Mello suggests with longer and more difficult courses then the top echelon would dominate even more so than they do now.
[/quote]
I agree that what you're saying would be the case in the short term but it would push girls to development more strength and 10-15 years down the line the average LPGA golfer would be bigger and stronger and the quality would have risen up the way the PGA and European tours have.

That's my point.
[/quote]

I happen to like the fact that on the LPGA someone like a tiny Mo Martin has as much of a chance to win as does Bam Bam (Lincicome). That's why I don't watch the tennis any more because the likes of the Williams sisters dominate because they just blow away opponents with their size and strength. Serena 5ft 9 in - 155 lbs. Venus 6ft 1 in - 159.8 lbs. In tennis any young girl now who is not going to grow up to be about this size no mater how skilful may as well take up another sport if they ever want to get to the top.
Do we really just want to see a lot of large 6ft female golfers every tournament. I don't. We should keep golf as a game of skill not just a power game. A sport that will encourage every young female to have a go because they can see no matter what size they are there is a chance with dedication, practice and skill they may one day also make it to the top.
I just don't get how just bigger and stronger = higher quality golf....

[MelloYello]

[quote name='Argonne69' timestamp='1424713329' post='11011079']
[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424712270' post='11010941']
[quote name='Argonne69' timestamp='1424709472' post='11010635']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424708530' post='11010505']
But if bigger and stronger ruined Tiger...... The physical demands on the LPGA will never be the same as on the PGA. And if it ever got close no one would watch it as it would be like the East German powerlifting team. IMO the LPGA is not competing really with the PGA, it is a different game. Like the WNBA to the NBA. A lot of folks on this forum recall the old days of shotmaking on the PGA tour with the old equipment and wish it would go back to that instead of the bomb and gauge mentality. Perhaps that is the LPGA niche.
[/quote]

Amen. If I want to watch the "power game", I'll tune into the PGA. I watch the LPGA because it resembles my game. Players are rewarded for driving accuracy, decent wedge play, and above average putting. When I see Ms. Ko hit a 5 hybrid 180 yards, hey, that's my game. Watching Ms. Park stick a gap wedge 3 feet from the pin from 90 yards sounds familiar. Having Ms. Lewis bury a putter into her bag, oh, wait.

Sure, watching the men nuke 215 yard 7 irons is interesting, but what do I gain from it?
[/quote]

That's not my point AT ALL.

It's not about how far you hit the 7-iron, it's about what you can do with it. I guess I'm just not convinced that with the course setups on the LPGA we're seeing the kinds of shot-making we do on the PGA where you have to hit that 7-iron with a draw, a fade, all sorts of trajectory/spin combinations.

Taking what I'm asking for and turning that into a request for "bomb and gouge" or "distance," now that's a straw man argument.


What I see on the LPGA is softer courses with relatively flat lies with relative open and receptive greens.

I would like all that to get a bit tougher so that these girls had to really work more seriously on their iron play.

That's not at all about distance. I'm perfectly fine if they aren't poking it out past 275.
[/quote]

At the Swinging Skirts last year I don't recall a flat lie. 'Same goes for the Evian.

Obviously, the LPGA can't be particularly choosy when it comes to courses. They take what they can get. I'll agree that many courses are set up too easy, which is why this past tournament was fun to watch.

That said, the men get their share of pussycat courses, with winning scores of 20+ under par.
[/quote]

I'll wrap up with us agreeing on that. I've been very long-winded on this and I feel like a total ****** as though I'm coming down on Lydia Ko or the LPGA--which I enjoy for the same reasons you pointed out. I'd like to see more LPGA coverage and I definitely want to see more Lydia Ko!

In defense of the men's tour, there are plenty of quality courses that challenge that players immensely (even excluding majors) which make up for the pussycat courses.

I can only hope that over the next few years the course setups get a bit tougher on the LGPA, the majors in particular.

[Shilgy]

Funny how in a thread for the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne the courses are called to soft and easy. If you watched over the weekend the course was anything but! As to the shotmaking there is not nearly as much of that as some would have you believe. I recall a few years back Parnevik and Sorenstam played together in the Wendy's or some such and Jesper described the shot he was going to hit and Annika just looked at him oddly with a "why, plenty of room to go straight at it with your stock shot".

[MelloYello]

[quote name='AKL Kiwi' timestamp='1424714648' post='11011231']
[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424708207' post='11010473']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424707948' post='11010449']
It seems to me that since women develop at a younger age in all sports then what Ko is doing is roughly the equivalent of Spieth, Rory et al are doing on the PGA tour. The one thing I will add though is that the PGA tour is a bit deeper. If the LPGA did what Mello suggests with longer and more difficult courses then the top echelon would dominate even more so than they do now.
[/quote]
I agree that what you're saying would be the case in the short term but it would push girls to development more strength and 10-15 years down the line the average LPGA golfer would be bigger and stronger and the quality would have risen up the way the PGA and European tours have.

That's my point.
[/quote]

I happen to like the fact that on the LPGA someone like a tiny Mo Martin has as much of a chance to win as does Bam Bam (Lincicome). That's why I don't watch the tennis any more because the likes of the Williams sisters dominate because they just blow away opponents with their size and strength. Serena 5ft 9 in - 155 lbs. Venus 6ft 1 in - 159.8 lbs. In tennis any young girl now who is not going to grow up to be about this size no mater how skilful may as well take up another sport if they ever want to get to the top.
Do we really just want to see a lot of large 6ft female golfers every tournament. I don't. We should keep golf as a game of skill not just a power game. A sport that will encourage every young female to have a go because they can see no matter what size they are there is a chance with dedication, practice and skill they may one day also make it to the top.
I just don't get how bigger and stronger = higher quality golf....
[/quote]

Again, it's not about strength for the sake of strength or about getting the most Amazonian of women out there. Look at the average PGA player...are they huge? No, but they are much more physically fit and much more physically capable than they used to be 20 and 30 years ago. It's about requiring these girls to be stronger (as the men have done over the last 10 years) so they can hit more shots so the golf courses can be set up to offer more of a challenge so ultimately we see more outstanding golf being played.

Bigger and stronger doesn't equal more quality golf but in a competitive environment individuals who want to win will have to do more and that's what we want--competition that leads to more capable golf where the girls are less limited in trajectory and shot-making. We don't to make it too easy on the LPGA and I fear that's becoming the case.

[MelloYello]

[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424715178' post='11011293']
Funny how in a thread for the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne the courses are called to soft and easy. If you watched over the weekend the course was anything but! As to the shotmaking there is not nearly as much of that as some would have you believe. I recall a few years back Parnevik and Sorenstam played together in the Wendy's or some such and Jesper described the shot he was going to hit and Annika just looked at him oddly with a "why, plenty of room to go straight at it with your stock shot".
[/quote]

I actually wish we did see more of what we saw this week. The firm and fast greens were a real challenge and there were some very troublesome green-side shots. I said that initially.

So yeah...it's a bit ironic but that's all. I don't think it changes the discussion at all.

[Shilgy]

I will add that I for one like to see various setups on both tours. If the women shoot around 20 under at the course here in Phoenix it is not because the course is too easily set up. Many of the holes are played from the mens tips. The girls are good. A bit boring perhaps if you consider hit the fairway, hit the green, one or two putt boring.Same on the PGA tour. Some people say they like to see the players challenged so that par is a good score. But these guys are much better than a scratch golfer. So let them show how much better some weeks and struggle on a tricked up course other weeks. My last comment on the boring was that the best golf I ever have seen was Tiger at best. He would get a lead like at the 2000 US Open at Pebble and just hit greens and make easy pars with an occasional birdie thrown in. Stress free.

[Shilgy]

Mello-sounds like we are on the same page-different set ups every week make it most interesting.

[DavePelz4]

[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424714905' post='11011259']
I'll wrap up with us agreeing on that. I've been very long-winded on this and I feel like a total ****** as though I'm coming down on Lydia Ko or the LPGA--which I enjoy for the same reasons you pointed out. I'd like to see more LPGA coverage and I definitely want to see more Lydia Ko!

In defense of the men's tour, there are plenty of quality courses that challenge that players immensely (even excluding majors) which make up for the pussycat courses.

I can only hope that over the next few years the course setups get a bit tougher on the LGPA, the majors in particular.
[/quote]

Mel first thank you for having a civilized discussion and taking the time to write well thought out posts!

There isn't a comparison between the men and women. If you look at data from Trackman, women do not have the potential to generate the amount of spin on a golf ball and when they play a course like Royal Melbourne or Pinehurst, the lack of spin is going to require them to play short of the green and take their chances on roll or bounces. But, it doesn't diminish the game or their abilities from my perspective. While I like watching difficult courses played periodically, that's not going to fit for the average fan. I've thought the LPGA course set up was more like on the Champions Tour where the pins are a bit more friendly, the greens more receptive generally and the fairways relatively ample. The only event where you see par protected is more of the US Open type/major courses.

Over the last 10 years, the USWO winning score averages -3 with the lowest being -9 and the highest +3. To me that's a fair test of golf.

[AKL Kiwi]

[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424715300' post='11011311']
[quote name='Shilgy' timestamp='1424715178' post='11011293']
Funny how in a thread for the Australian Open at Royal Melbourne the courses are called to soft and easy. If you watched over the weekend the course was anything but! As to the shotmaking there is not nearly as much of that as some would have you believe. I recall a few years back Parnevik and Sorenstam played together in the Wendy's or some such and Jesper described the shot he was going to hit and Annika just looked at him oddly with a "why, plenty of room to go straight at it with your stock shot".
[/quote]

I actually wish we did see more of what we saw this week. The firm and fast greens were a real challenge and there were some very troublesome green-side shots. I said that initially.

So yeah...it's a bit ironic but that's all. I don't think it changes the discussion at all.
[/quote]

I agree you make some valid points... I for one would like to see more challenging course setups. I guess that goes along with the ladies getting the chance to play courses like RM. If you read the comments of some of the older golfers still going around like Laura Davies they openly admit that one of the reasons their not winning now is because the game was easier back then so I guess the game and players are moving in the right direction and getting to play on more challenging courses will maybe force the players to become more inventive with their stroke play.

[MelloYello]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1424715933' post='11011383']
[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424714905' post='11011259']
I'll wrap up with us agreeing on that. I've been very long-winded on this and I feel like a total ****** as though I'm coming down on Lydia Ko or the LPGA--which I enjoy for the same reasons you pointed out. I'd like to see more LPGA coverage and I definitely want to see more Lydia Ko!

In defense of the men's tour, there are plenty of quality courses that challenge that players immensely (even excluding majors) which make up for the pussycat courses.

I can only hope that over the next few years the course setups get a bit tougher on the LGPA, the majors in particular.
[/quote]

Mel first thank you for having a civilized discussion and taking the time to write well thought out posts!

There isn't a comparison between the men and women. If you look at data from Trackman, women do not have the potential to generate the amount of spin on a golf ball and when they play a course like Royal Melbourne or Pinehurst, the lack of spin is going to require them to play short of the green and take their chances on roll or bounces. But, it doesn't diminish the game or their abilities from my perspective. While I like watching difficult courses played periodically, that's not going to fit for the average fan. I've thought the LPGA course set up was more like on the Champions Tour where the pins are a bit more friendly, the greens more receptive generally and the fairways relatively ample. The only event where you see par protected is more of the US Open type/major courses.

Over the last 10 years, the USWO winning score averages -3 with the lowest being -9 and the highest +3. To me that's a fair test of golf.
[/quote]

Absolutely! I'm not trying to attack anything here and I'll be completely honest in saying that this way one of the best weeks of LPGA coverage I've seen in awhile.

I guess I'm just wondering about the philosophy of....if things were tougher...would the girl evolve to be stronger and more versatile? I don't know. It's just something a person might ask.

Thank you for the thoughts and I'm glad we all enjoyed the coverage this week. Lydia is off to the races. Anyone betting against her winning in New Zealand?

[One Putter]

What is this guy talking about? More power off the tee = better golf? Absolute rubbish. I think we all know that old guy at the course who hits it 100 yards behind the young men and still beats them by 10 strokes. Golf has never been about power. Tiger won at Augusta with very very sharp putting and chipping. In fact, that's always been his signature. He's the best putter under pressure that I've ever seen.

The name of the game is not making mistakes. Lydia doesn't do it often. When she does, she tends to minimize the mistake and recover from it. That's how you play great golf. I've seen this girl roll in more clutch par putts than i can count and she's only 17. My hope regarding the competition is that she pushes everyone to step their game up and we get some epic battles on Sundays. Ko alone has already generated a lot of new interest in LPGA. She's simply great for the game.

Look at Michelle Wie at the US Open last year. She hit every farway and green and won the thing. Don't make mistakes in a golf tournament and you'll be right up there on Sunday every time.

And like anything, way WAY easier said than done.

[DavePelz4]

Mel provided some inspiration to do a bit of digging on the LPGA as I have a bit of time before the next meeting. Looked at driving distance leader, GIR, scoring average/# of players who averaged under 72 and $ earned. I used the years of 1995, 2000, 2010 and 2014 as reference points. Here's what the LPGA site shows:

[u][b]Driving Distance[/b][/u]
1995 - 265
2000 - 270
2010 - 274
2014 - 271

[b][u]Greens in Regulation[/u][/b]
1995 - 73%
2000 - 75%
2010 - 75%
2014 - 77%

[u][b]Scoring Average[/b][/u]
1995 - 71
2000 - 70
2010 - 69.9
2014 - 69.5

[u][b]# of Players Averaging <72[/b][/u]
1995 - 20
2000 - 20
2010 - 32
2014 - 66

[u][b]Money Earned on Course[/b][/u]
1995 - $667K
2000 - $1.9M
2010 - $1.9M
2014 - $2.5M

If you consider a generation to be about 20-25 years, there is the obvious improvement in money but more importantly, the scoring average is nearly 1.5 shots better/per round and a 300% increase in the strength/depth of the tour as measured by the number that are shooting under the theoretical par of 72.

Although I don't have the data to back it up, my theory is they are playing much tougher courses now as compared to 20 years ago. The one data point that surprised me was the driving distance not being appreciably longer than it was 20 years ago.

[mnmlistgolfr]

[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424715188' post='11011295']

Again, it's not about strength for the sake of strength or about getting the most Amazonian of women out there. Look at the average PGA player...are they huge? No, but they are much more physically fit and much more physically capable than they used to be 20 and 30 years ago. [b]It's about requiring these girls to be stronger[/b] (as the men have done over the last 10 years) so they can hit more shots so the golf courses can be set up to offer more of a challenge so ultimately we see more outstanding golf being played.

Bigger and stronger doesn't equal more quality golf but in a competitive environment individuals who want to win will have to do more and that's what we want--competition that leads to more capable golf where the girls are less limited in trajectory and shot-making. We don't to make it too easy on the LPGA and I fear that's becoming the case.
[/quote]

We could supply plenty of evidence from Instagram that LPGA Tour players are working out hard in the gym, but we're not allowed to do so.

[mnmlistgolfr]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1424721159' post='11012069']
The one data point that surprised me was the driving distance not being appreciably longer than it was 20 years ago.
[/quote]

1995: 10 players averaged 250+ yards, 2 players averaged 260+ yards
2014: 79 players averaged 250+ yards, 16 players averaged 260+ yards

[AKL Kiwi]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1424715933' post='11011383']
[quote name='MelloYello' timestamp='1424714905' post='11011259']
[/quote]


Thank you for the thoughts and I'm glad we all enjoyed the coverage this week. Lydia is off to the races. Anyone betting against her winning in New Zealand?
[/quote]

I'm not heading to Clearwater this year to see Lydia but they are expecting a larger crowd. There will be no live coverage here on pay TV or otherwise which is again disappointing. Not sure if it's worth starting a thread for the NZWO but news has just come through that twelve-year-old Bohyun Park has won one of the final places in the field by winning the qualifier. She is also coached by Guy Wilson and plays with a set of Ko's old golf clubs....

[Argonne69]

[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1424721159' post='11012069']

[u][b]Driving Distance[/b][/u]
1995 - 265
2000 - 270
2010 - 274
2014 - 271

Although I don't have the data to back it up, my theory is they are playing much tougher courses now as compared to 20 years ago. The one data point that surprised me was the driving distance not being appreciably longer than it was 20 years ago.
[/quote]

We see a lot of players using 3 woods off the tee on many holes. I know that driving average is calculated on just two holes per round, but is it possible some players are using fairway woods on these holes? I agree that the courses are tougher than they were in the past, so giving up a bit of distance to stay in the fairway makes sense, no?

[Argonne69]

[quote name='mnmlistgolfr' timestamp='1424721703' post='11012141']
[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1424721159' post='11012069']
The one data point that surprised me was the driving distance not being appreciably longer than it was 20 years ago.
[/quote]

1995: 10 players averaged 250+ yards, 2 players averaged 260+ yards
2014: 79 players averaged 250+ yards, 16 players averaged 260+ yards
[/quote]

So far in 2015, we're down to 49 players averaging 250+. However, conditions in Florida and The Bahamas were less than ideal.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='mnmlistgolfr' timestamp='1424721703' post='11012141']
[quote name='DavePelz4' timestamp='1424721159' post='11012069']
The one data point that surprised me was the driving distance not being appreciably longer than it was 20 years ago.
[/quote]

1995: 10 players averaged 250+ yards, 2 players averaged 260+ yards
2014: 79 players averaged 250+ yards, 16 players averaged 260+ yards
[/quote]exactly what I was going to research-saved me the time-thank you!

[legitimategolf]

Tournament winning golf is usually "boring". A regular stroke play event means like 18+ hours on the course. That's a lot of time for things to go awry mentally. It takes a lot more to win than just being automatic or a great putter, or being able to hit picturesque high fades and draws. Look at Tiger Woods at his brutal dominating best. I clearly recall in '05-'09, his pet phrase when describing his game, especially when winning a tournament, was "I'm just plodding along". Don't believe me, go search for "Tiger Woods plodding along 2007".

Mello, what comes through in your posts is mainly "what I'd like to see" and that is of course cool, but it sounds like you take a very simplistic, reductionist view of golf. I think if you were made the commissioner of LPGA tomorrow, and implemented the desired changes, making more courses demand a higher caliber ball-striking, even giving it a few years I doubt you would see the desired results. My guess is you would just see higher scores all around.

Anyways to me it seems like the women's game *is* progressing and raising the bar. A quick look at the stats shows that scoring average is lower than it was say a decade ago. I didn't watch twenty or even ten years ago but I imagine the competition was a lot softer back then. These days it seems very intense with challengers coming from all over the world. And pretty sure girls now are driving it way past where Nancy Lopez and company were hitting it back in the day.

Lastly you deserve a sock in the arm from someone like Brittany or Ariya.

[Awsi Dooger]

Immensely enjoyable combo of courses, with the men at Riviera and the women at Royal Melbourne. Might be the best all year. Just ridiculous that so many top players on both tours chose to skip.

Notice Jessica Korda's post-round interview and facial expressions. That's the answer right there. The Australian announcer was trying her best to prompt some positive and harmless summary from Jessica, who chose her words carefully as a former champion. Finally she defaulted to the crux of the matter, that she can't wait to get to a course next week in which she can land her clubs on the number.

That's what the vast, vast majority of current pros prefer. Get me away from tracks that require atypical shot selection, and actual strategy.

I was rooting for Amy Yang. That's never something you can rely on, or assign emotion. If she doesn't blow it, it's an accident. I'd like to see So Yeon and Amy coming down the stretch, with both at least 3 clear of third place. Marvelous crash potential.

Ariya was really lashing at the ball. Much moreso than I witnessed at Ocala. No whiplash there but I saw recoil all day yesterday.

I'm not a fan of hers but I appreciate that style. I notice in this thread we've again resorted to the hilarity that power isn't essential. I wish you guys made the weekly matchup odds. Distance isn't everything but it's more than halfway home. Heck, Ariya with her eraticism couldn't threaten to make the cut if she were average length. But since she's a bomber she's hitting short irons into those fast sloping greens, with surreal margin for error.

Old guys frequent sites like this. Heck, I increasingly qualify for that description. When distance starts to lag, old guys want to pretend it doesn't matter, that it never mattered. Stuff it up your rear. That's where it belongs. This game belongs to the young bombers. The clubhead speed they attain allows for advantage everywhere, including Dustin Johnson's awesome flop shot on #10 in the playoff yesterday. Dustin can overcome a 7 month layoff without missing much of anything largely due to that trump card distance. Unfortunately he's not going to be buried in the matchup odds any longer. When he returned he was being paired against guys he's markedly superior to.

[Mr22putt]

[quote name='One Putter' timestamp='1424719777' post='11011875']
He's the best putter under pressure that I've ever seen.
[/quote]
I'll fix it for you.

Tiger USE TO BE the best putter under pressure that I've ever seen.

[Mr22putt]

[quote name='mnmlistgolfr' timestamp='1424721287' post='11012087']
We could supply plenty of evidence from Instagram that LPGA Tour players are working out hard in the gym, but we're not allowed to do so.
[/quote]
Ya but you have the technical skills to put a potato sack over SMOKEHOUSE when she's in the gym.

[Mr22putt]

The depth of talent on the LPGA & other women tours has increased over the years.

But

IMO....the reason why the LPGA is not significantly deep in talent is (maybe outside of S. Korea)....there aren't too many really avid young female golfers who want to become a competitive pro golfer.
We all witness the lack of young teen gals goofing around all day at our local courses and clubs.
It's all a numbers game.

There's quite a bit of separation of the top 30 ranked gals vs. others.

[Shilgy]

[quote name='Mr22putt' timestamp='1424725598' post='11012683']
The depth of talent on the LPGA & other women tours has increased over the years.

But

IMO....the reason why the LPGA is not significantly deep in talent is (maybe outside of S. Korea)....there aren't too many really avid young female golfers who want to become a competitive pro golfer.
We all witness the lack of young teen gals goofing around all day at our local courses and clubs.
It's all a numbers game.

There's quite a bit of separation of the top 30 ranked gals vs. others.
[/quote] We need an agree button rather than a like button. I agree with you post but don't like that you are correct. The club I am at has a great junior program but not all that many girls.

[Argonne69]

I beg to differ, Awsi, at least as far as the women are concerned. The top 3 women in the world are currently ranked 31st, 42nd, and 69th in driving distance. Length is overrated. As long as a player is not overly short, they're not at a significant disadvantage.

Edit: Looking at the full 2014 season, Ms. Ko ranked 86th in driving distance, and Ms. Park was 91st. Yeah, a real disadvantage. Ms. Lewis was 22nd.

[One Putter]

yeah Dustin did so well this week because he was a bomber. had nothing to do with him holing putts on Sunday.