Mac O'Grady: Off the Deap End?

[Jaliveto]

Didn't say anything about tiger or the other pros. I stand by what I said. I've played both sets of clubs and both balls I mentioned. There is that much difference. We(the amatuers) are not playing 7200 yards courses. Most all courses in my area of 6800-7000 from the back tees and they never play that long.

 

I'm just honest about my game. technology has made me much better.

 

Then your not really a scratch golfer. Your equipment is not giving you 10 strokes a round. If you truely are a scratch golfer you are only 3-4 strokes per round from being tour caliber. Thus insinuating that a tour caliber golfer would shoot around 77 with inferior equipment...and to that i call BS.

 

 

Well Jared, you didn't read the my post. Never said anything about being a scratch golfer. I play to a 3-4 handicap. Never claimed to be great. WHat I said was, with new equipment and a new ball ON A GOOD DAY , I'd shoot you par or better. WIth the old s***, an 82 or so. Stand by that.

[slicefixer]

O'Grady, as a person who's dedicated most of his life to golf, the golf swing, and perfecting his OWN golf swing is no doubt REALLY turned off by the advent of "bomb and gouge" due to the advancements in equipment and the PGA Tour's desire to "market" via the "home run" and "birdie ball".........LOTS of us are S I C K of driving ACCURACY being de-valued so much and pure POWER being rewarded so much........but that's life in 07' and for the forseeable future (unless the USGA shows some gut's or idiocy....depends on which side of the debate you fall) IF you want to watch PGA Tour/Professional golf.......just tha' way it is.......on certain courses with certain fields the "dinkers" still have a shot IF they putt like Houdini, but, on MOST PGA Tour course set ups they have virtually NO chance of winning without a "fantasy putting week".......

 

As for MORAD, I can't wait for the book to be published myself......although, IMOP, it most probably won't ever be published unless Mac needs some $$$ (which I would doubt he does due to the success of his private schools, etc.)

 

As for some of your boasts about Mac's game nowadays, he's a "shell" of his former self (as most of us are after 40 - 45) and while he certainly can still hit it pretty well to this day, he's no longer an OVERALL match for the best his age.......just tha' way it is as the injury gremlin and father time don't discriminate........his physical problems are/were a crying shame as he would have made a FANTASTIC addition to ANY tour/tournament.....(and if he still had his true game "together" he'd have no doubt won his share IMOP)

 

As for Tiger, IMOP he'd win with Ti, Persimmon, hickory, or a friggin' tree branch.......he's been 100% WHOLLY dedicated since he's recognized a conscious thought to ONE thing........NOT to be the best on the tour......nor the best in the world......but to be the best who ever drew in a breath of air........and his willingness to sacrifice (IMOP) greatly surpasses ANYONE other than Hogan/Player.......and that includes Nicklaus, etc.........he's simply unreal........and I do understand what ole Mac is trying to say........Tiger has simply played what's been dealt......."bomb and gouge"..........at least for most of his career........but those that think he wouldn't win if time were rolled back......LOL......go watch the tape of last years Open Championship.......the man simply KNOWS how to PLAY golf no matter WHAT the circumstances....... best of all time IMOP......if he doesn't get hurt the record book is his for our lifetimes for sure........ :)

[jared]

I have never seen so many rants in my life.

 

To answer your question in one word...yes.

 

yes he has off the deep end period.

[hayam]

Interesting point, but also .... SF

 

I think Tiger could beat Hogan, Nicklaus in their prime all the time..given time, with the same equipments.

 

But technology improves, Swing knowledge improved by leaps and bounds since Hogan, Nicklaus. So its really hard to compare these heroes apple to apple. Tiger have a much better condition to start with, have an excellent education, grow up condition. Hogan played through poverty, accident and war, and found the answers in the dirt.

 

Tiger learn from Butch, Butch learn from His father. and his father Played with and also pick Hogan's brain..

 

Tiger is huge physically, Hogan is not. Both are very physical trained. but obviously current knowledge on training and nutrition is different.

 

So... its really hard to compare these people.. But I would have to give the edge to Hogan, given that he found everything in the dirt. Did not have a coach watching him, did he depend a lot on his caddy like the current game?

 

They are true Heroes in their own context. So we cannot compare them.

[right2left]

Back then, he was the only one hitting 6 iron's 200 yards and now its pretty common on tour.

 

Well....Davis Love might wanna have a conversation with you, because as far back as the late 80's, he was carrying his 6 iron 210. I've seen it live, as well as have it on tape.

 

I'm not sure why people insist on talking out there you-know-what, in order to attempt to make a point.

 

And Davis was one of the last guy's to still use persimmon , right?

 

correct you are...

[slicefixer]

Jared........we ALL understand you don't like O'Grady.......as for the "rants".......a forum is a means for people to state their opinions, long or short, on the subject of the thread.......some just choose to express their opinions with a greater degree of thought than yourself........ :)

[slicefixer]

Interesting point, but also .... SF

 

I think Tiger could beat Hogan, Nicklaus in their prime all the time..given time, with the same equipments.

 

But technology improves, Swing knowledge improved by leaps and bounds since Hogan, Nicklaus. So its really hard to compare these heroes apple to apple. Tiger have a much better condition to start with, have an excellent education, grow up condition. Hogan played through poverty, accident and war, and found the answers in the dirt.

 

Tiger learn from Butch, Butch learn from His father. and his father Played with and also pick Hogan's brain..

 

Tiger is huge physically, Hogan is not. Both are very physical trained. but obviously current knowledge on training and nutrition is different.

 

So... its really hard to compare these people.. But I would have to give the edge to Hogan, given that he found everything in the dirt. Did not have a coach watching him, did he depend a lot on his caddy like the current game?

 

They are true Heroes in their own context. So we cannot compare them.

 

 

Couldn't have said it better........... :)

[jared]

Jared........we ALL understand you don't like O'Grady.......as for the "rants".......a forum is a means for people to state their opinions, long or short, on the subject of the thread.......some just choose to express their opinions with a greater degree of thought than yourself........ :)

 

Or have more free time.

[slicefixer]

LOL.......if you only KNEW......lol

[iCollector]

A good swing is a good swing, period. My humble view is that modern technology has made golf easier for people to play due to the more forgiving technological advantages built into equipment. Take someone who has never played and is an adult and give them a set of blades to learn with. How hard would that be.... Same person with a set of forgiving cavity backs....

 

There will always be a dividing line on what the public thinks. I, for one, feel that there is a point where technology takes away from the skills required. The example cited re tennis is exactly how I feel. The big serve/ace era made tennis for me very boring, and yeah, technology had a big part in it. I'm a relative newcomer to golf, and if I had to lean on blades, well, I don't know how i would have progressed, but the forgiveness in the clubs of today allows me to play a fun game.

 

The debates on who would beat who are essentially silly, as they can never be proven one way or another. Handicaps haven't descended with new tech, so one can argue that it doesn't make that much difference. And that may be true for the general public. But in the pro arena, I think we could use a little bit of restriction, but where? That is one thing that will most likely never be answered.

[akanacl]

Some times it takes some one to come out and stand for whats right. Mabey this will get Tiger to jump into the discussion on the tour level. He had to go with changes himself a few years back.

I still agree with Mac. When he was on the big stage he was in the top ten in overall driving distance out there.

What about the drug testing news? Notice how this has come up again, whom brought that up years ago?

 

Golf has ambassadors in many ways and many personalities, Mac is one of them. In today’s world it takes some shock to get peoples eyes and ears to notice.......

Come on Dana it was a ridiculous comment...one of those stupid things that can ruin a lifetime of good work. He may be a "guru" to some (you have to be over 50 years old to even know his name), but that comment has now cast him as somewhat of a buffoon to the general golfing community.

 

All of the truly great ones in our games history measure their words carefully. If they have a criticism its usually well thought out and put into the proper perspective. Jones,Snead,Player,Watson,Woods,Nicklaus,Trevino,Hogan,Faldo,Norman,Mickelson,etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Do you think any of these gents would rate the other as a 1? LOL

 

I think you need to check the definition of "ambassador"

[akanacl]

Could someone who attended a few majors back in the 60s and 70s please comment on the greens? On some of the old black and white film footage the greens looked really slow compared to current standards. The players are really whacking 20 footers to get them to the hole.

 

It may not seen pertinent to the thread, but maybe the lack of distance with the equpment and balls might have been offset by very receptive greens. Has Ogrady ever commented on the greens from one era to the other?

 

Probably not...

[dana dahlquist]

Some times it takes some one to come out and stand for whats right. Mabey this will get Tiger to jump into the discussion on the tour level. He had to go with changes himself a few years back.

I still agree with Mac. When he was on the big stage he was in the top ten in overall driving distance out there.

What about the drug testing news? Notice how this has come up again, whom brought that up years ago?

 

Golf has ambassadors in many ways and many personalities, Mac is one of them. In today’s world it takes some shock to get peoples eyes and ears to notice.......

Come on Dana it was a ridiculous comment...one of those stupid things that can ruin a lifetime of good work. He may be a "guru" to some (you have to be over 50 years old to even know his name), but that comment has now cast him as somewhat of a buffoon to the general golfing community.

 

All of the truly great ones in our games history measure their words carefully. If they have a criticism its usually well thought out and put into the proper perspective. Jones,Snead,Player,Watson,Woods,Nicklaus,Trevino,Hogan,Faldo,Norman,Mickelson,etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Do you think any of these gents would rate the other as a 1? LOL

 

I think you need to check the definition of "ambassador"

Mabey you kinda missed my meaning. Im not saying you or I would say it like he does. However on the side of the fence that Mac does live on. No matter what he says still saying the ball is going in the wrong.....don't think that would ruin his work.

Lets look at it from this stand point. He's in great shape, and his swing is solid hits it right on line. SO if that were you and another guy who does not make the same pass at it hits it by you and stays in the short grass. What would you say. Some of my friends on the tour are hitting drivers and can't bend the ball to save there life. Is that what we want.

[yoonie]

I think you guys are being too harsh on Mac. Yeah, the stuff he said about tiger was wrong (period), but I think the problem is more than he couldn't express himself clearly (and few ppl can). I think more what he meant to say was that Tiger probably wouldn't have had nearly as much success with the driving problems he has now (considering that the driver has increased in forgiveness more than another club) if he had competed in the persimmon era.

 

The main reason I say this is because of the near universal respect that Mac gets in the golf teaching community, and think that someone of his clout deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[hayam]

Some times it takes some one to come out and stand for whats right. Mabey this will get Tiger to jump into the discussion on the tour level. He had to go with changes himself a few years back.

I still agree with Mac. When he was on the big stage he was in the top ten in overall driving distance out there.

What about the drug testing news? Notice how this has come up again, whom brought that up years ago?

 

Golf has ambassadors in many ways and many personalities, Mac is one of them. In today’s world it takes some shock to get peoples eyes and ears to notice.......

Come on Dana it was a ridiculous comment...one of those stupid things that can ruin a lifetime of good work. He may be a "guru" to some (you have to be over 50 years old to even know his name), but that comment has now cast him as somewhat of a buffoon to the general golfing community.

 

All of the truly great ones in our games history measure their words carefully. If they have a criticism its usually well thought out and put into the proper perspective. Jones,Snead,Player,Watson,Woods,Nicklaus,Trevino,Hogan,Faldo,Norman,Mickelson,etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Do you think any of these gents would rate the other as a 1? LOL

 

I think you need to check the definition of "ambassador"

 

Firstly, Dana Dahlquist is Mac's students. He knows what he is talking about. I think most of his students are hard to beat and some are already very successful players.

 

Secondly, Mac, like Palmer and Nicklaus did, is giving his view on Bomb and Gouge in PGA now. Stating Tiger and I think he should bring in Phil as and example too. Bubba Watson said the same thing.

 

Thirdly, This is a big problem for the PGA and they are trying to stop these from turning into a boring Putt Putt.

 

Fourthly, Tiger's father first approached Mac Ogrady for help, which he declined, before turning to Butch harmon.

 

Mac is qualified to say what he needed to say.

[akanacl]

Some times it takes some one to come out and stand for whats right. Mabey this will get Tiger to jump into the discussion on the tour level. He had to go with changes himself a few years back.

I still agree with Mac. When he was on the big stage he was in the top ten in overall driving distance out there.

What about the drug testing news? Notice how this has come up again, whom brought that up years ago?

 

Golf has ambassadors in many ways and many personalities, Mac is one of them. In today’s world it takes some shock to get peoples eyes and ears to notice.......

Come on Dana it was a ridiculous comment...one of those stupid things that can ruin a lifetime of good work. He may be a "guru" to some (you have to be over 50 years old to even know his name), but that comment has now cast him as somewhat of a buffoon to the general golfing community.

 

All of the truly great ones in our games history measure their words carefully. If they have a criticism its usually well thought out and put into the proper perspective. Jones,Snead,Player,Watson,Woods,Nicklaus,Trevino,Hogan,Faldo,Norman,Mickelson,etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Do you think any of these gents would rate the other as a 1? LOL

 

I think you need to check the definition of "ambassador"

 

Firstly, Dana Dahlquist is Mac's students. He knows what he is talking about. I think most of his students are hard to beat and some are already very successful players.

 

Secondly, Mac, like Palmer and Nicklaus did, is giving his view on Bomb and Gouge in PGA now. Stating Tiger and I think he should bring in Phil as and example too. Bubba Watson said the same thing.

 

Thirdly, This is a big problem for the PGA and they are trying to stop these from turning into a boring Putt Putt.

 

Fourthly, Tiger's father first approached Mac Ogrady for help, which he declined, before turning to Butch harmon.

 

Mac is qualified to say what he needed to say.

 

ok i guess Mac needed to say Tiger was a 1..compared to Jack and others..LOL... and he owed his dominace to technology...makes a lot of sense..LOL I guess the rest of the tour plays inferior clubs and balls...for the past ten years.

 

And still no one has attempted to discuss the other 40-50% of a tour players scorecard....Short Game and Putting. Can any O'Grady defenders compare the short game back then to the short game now..???????? Were the greens way more receptive back then? ...."old school" equipment able to stop the ball on much softer greens?

 

Whether he is qualified or not the comments are a joke. We are all very fortunate to be alive in the Tiger Era. He is putting a new face on the game, where athletes will be dominating the game in the years to come.

[hayam]

I think some of his points maybe not spot on. I personally heard Mike Austin/ Sean Fister have their longest drive of their live using old ball and persimmon . But I think some of his opinions is worth taking a look,look at the grooves, change the quality of balls .

 

The article is juiced up ( for popularity reason which it obviously work) and make to seem Mac bashing Tiger but in fact , he is just explaining his point of view on Equipments have on current state of the game. Would you want to watch this game and see that it turns to a Bomb and gouge, putt putt ?Phil only made 3 fairways and won the Masters.. Thats pretty disturbing and everyone is looking for a solution. You name it, tall grass, 280 yards par 3 for super players. The game should reward Players , and should not reward Power that much.. relative ... not absolute...

 

Humans become taller, stronger , fitter due to technology. Golf swing knowledge gets better and better by the day. Different time frame.

 

Tiger upbringing vs Hogan Upbringing.. One excellent, one during proverty. One learn from the best, one found everything in the dirt. One have the best in nutrition and training technology, hogan even survived a car crash, Do you think its fair compare these heroes of different era? One depend alot on caddy when caddy used to take more a backseat. BUT you are right.. Tiger will beat Hogan with the same conditions. but if they are brought up the same way. Not necessary. But the point is, with current swing and equipment knowledge, alot more people can win and its getting harder to dominate. People do get better.

 

Oh, Mac can FLop balls like shots around the green using a 2 Iron. probably better than me using my sandwedge.

[dana dahlquist]

Players shortgame on the whole are much better. I talk with a few older players whom played with Hogan and Snead. They said they may had been 3 strokes better if they played in on greens. Ill take there word for that not just out of respect but for how they influanced my golf. They said there are more putts made and better landings on the greens from bunker than they ever had.

[akanacl]

I think some of his points maybe not spot on. I personally heard Mike Austin/ Sean Fister have their longest drive of their live using old ball and persimmon . But I think some of his opinions is worth taking a look,look at the grooves, change the quality of balls .

 

The article is juiced up ( for popularity reason which it obviously work) and make to seem Mac bashing Tiger but in fact , he is just explaining his point of view on Equipments have on current state of the game. Would you want to watch this game and see that it turns to a Bomb and gouge, putt putt ?Phil only made 3 fairways and won the Masters.. Thats pretty disturbing and everyone is looking for a solution. You name it, tall grass, 280 yards par 3 for super players. The game should reward Players , and should not reward Power that much.. relative ... not absolute...

 

Humans become taller, stronger , fitter due to technology. Golf swing knowledge gets better and better by the day. Different time frame.

 

Tiger upbringing vs Hogan Upbringing.. One excellent, one during proverty. One learn from the best, one found everything in the dirt. One have the best in nutrition and training technology, hogan even survived a car crash, Do you think its fair compare these heroes of different era? One depend alot on caddy when caddy used to take more a backseat. BUT you are right.. Tiger will beat Hogan with the same conditions. but if they are brought up the same way. Not necessary. But the point is, with current swing and equipment knowledge, alot more people can win and its getting harder to dominate. People do get better.

 

Oh, Mac can FLop balls like shots around the green using a 2 Iron. probably better than me using my sandwedge.

Hayam I have great respect for your opinions here...you and a few others, Slicefixer, HoganFan etc. are the "swing gurus" IMHO on these boards. You guys are the dogs...the rest of us are peeing with the pups!!! My comments are made in defference to your knowledge of the game and gamers.

 

But I believe the point being missed here is the that game is not tee to fairway to green. Its tee to in the hole. I'm certain the courses, especially the greens were set up much softer in days of yore. Inferior equipment, inferior balls, softer more benign conditions..a natural balance.

 

As I've already stated the obvious...the short game is 40-50% of a pros scorecard. So IMHO Macs comments are just about half the pro game. He doesnt address equipment and ball technology relative to the playing field itself...a huge interdependent factor.

[Stunt101]

Yeah, SF and Hoganfan are two swing genius's IMO!

 

you got time for that e-mail tonight SF? I'm gonna go to the range first thing tomorrow and want to dream about what you tell me to do tonight! hehe

[slicefixer]

I'm tellin' you guy's the root of O'Grady's frustration is that he worked his entire life to perfect HIS swing to the point that he had complete control over the ball under PRESSURE......and that takes a tremendous amount of desire/passion/work/sweat and THOUGHT.......IMOP in his mind this is no longer necessary due to the advances in equipment and the current PGA Tour course set ups that allow for "bomb and gouge" strategy (if you want to call THAT a strategy.... :)).....that golf no longer requires the KEEN "strategy" and shotmaking skills when you can just tee it a mile high.....blast it a mile high (with lil' or no regard for where it comes down)......then, IF you miss the fairway you simply take a short iron "loaded" with U grooves and hack it back up into the air and watch it stop on a dime.......and I agree with him 100%........there NEEDS to be some kind of "balance" between power AND accuracy.......NOT just hammer it, wedge it, putt-putt.......

 

The REALLY SAD thing is kid's watch this junk on TV and THINK that's how you play tournament golf.....model THEIR games after this "type" of play.......and MAYBE 10% of them are CAPABLE of playing this way with any degree of consistency.........hell, in professional golf right now there are only, maybe, 20 or so guy's who CAN play that way on a consistent basis with any degree of success.......I think all kid's should learn HOW to play golf like a "chess match" with the golf course and THEN, IF they develop the necessary power, learn to play "bomb and gouge" when conditions/course design/course set up allow for it.........

 

There are still CERTAIN courses that ARE a complete examination of a competent professionals game.......Riviera, Colonial, Westchester (when it was still used), Oakmont, Merion, Winged Foot (West or East), Southern Hills, TPC Sawgrass, etc. etc........but MOST are like the TPC Las Colinas, Doral, Redstone, Torrey North, etc. etc. etc. (ALL of which I've either visited or played) where on most holes you have a GENERAL "line" to aim it on off the tee and blast all hell from it......NO "cute" doglegs.......NO "chutes" to drive out of and which cause poorer drivers FITS.......NO holes that require a player to REALLY think on the tee about angles/lines/hazards/club choice/shot shape/shot trajectory, etc. etc. etc.

 

PLEASE understand, I'm NOT against SOME tour courses/set ups favoring long/power hitters, just NOT the MAJORITY fitting this "style" of play.......makes it SO much more difficult for a kid who's NOT blessed with size/speed to ever develop into a top flight professional even though he/she might be FULL of guts/passion/discipline/desire......THEIR "genetics" are just stacked against them........

 

Understand, whenever I read an article in GD/GM, or a new instruction book, etc. I IMMEDIATELY think of the average 20 hdcp trying to read same........and when I see such a HUGE advantage given to POWER in our game, a game in which success traditionally was based upon a number of factors pretty much equally (power/accuracy/intelligence, etc. etc. etc.), I IMMEDIATELY think of smaller and less talented kids and the FACT that they've got a MUCH higher 'mountain" to climb if they wish to emulate successful tour players of earlier generations......Kite/Hogan/Toski/Runyan/Burke immediately come to mind...........ALL to sell tickets and emulate other professional sports idea of "marketing"........

[hoganfan924]

Players shortgame on the whole are much better. I talk with a few older players whom played with Hogan and Snead. They said they may had been 3 strokes better if they played in on greens. Ill take there word for that not just out of respect but for how they influanced my golf. They said there are more putts made and better landings on the greens from bunker than they ever had.

 

No question. You want to see one of the best exhibitions of shotmaking ever with mediocre to terrible putting, go get the Shell's WWoG Snead vs. Hogan match on DVD and study it. Hogan hit every single fairway and green playing persimmon & balata on a course that played 7056 yds. And he hit as many draws as he hit fades. He didn't have a putt over 40 feet and lots of 10-15 footers and Snead wasn't too shabby either, but their putting strokes just looked atrocious. You won't believe how many long putts Snead hits dead off the toe - like 1" or more off of the sweet spot. Both men where about 53 years old too.

 

After the match, Gene Sarazen says to Hogan, "Ben, that was the finest round of golf I've ever seen played in my lifetime." And Hogan only shot a 3 under 69. That quality of shotmaking has left the game I'm afraid. Snead/Hogan Match was in 1965

 

And yes, the greens looked pretty slow. But you have to keep in mind that slow/shaggy also usually means bumpy and full of spike marks (softspikes didn't come around until the late 1980's.)

[dana dahlquist]

Ill add one more thing to this debate. When I was in H.S. Tiger played against us a few times and in junior golf. He had so many shots back then that he does not do (or can't due to the ball) He really worked the ball. The big thing was around a green, High soft and low spinners. That is very typical of the Cali kids when the old balls were used. Now all the kids hit high shots around here. I asked one today what a flyer was, he had not a clue.

Brandon down at Callaway's tour dept. said this afternoon that the clubs should never do it, unless it’s very bad.

My point may be that Tiger would hit it better if the situation is presented.

[sergizmo]

Some more thoughts to add into this debate. What is considered the "ideal" level of technology for the modern game?

 

With shafts should it be pushed back to steel, or all the way back to hickory? Way back when steel shafts hit the scene I'm sure there were the same cries of "technology is ruining the game"

 

With regards to drivers should we keep titanium heads and just scale back the size? Go back to steel? Or go way back to wood?

 

Should solid core balls be outlawed? Or even wound balls on top of this, as they allow for huge spin?

 

It's also curious to note that a lot of these past greats that are complaining about technology ruining the game consider the level of technology in their era to be the ideal. It's almost like a validation of their accomplishments compared to today's great players. Tiger is great, but because he plays a solid core ball and uses a titanium driver will never be as great as Jack. This isn't directly said, but it is pretty easy to read between the lines.

 

And why should the whole focus of the USGA governing equipment be on the top .1% who play the game? It's the weekend players who attend tournaments and watch on TV that provide the revenue for the PGA Tour to exist, not the other way around. In fact if the PGA Tour were to disappear tommorow, all of us would still enjoy playing this great game. I'm not saying the PGA Tour doesn't matter, but it should not be the primary focus of the USGA when it comes to rules on equipment.

[hoganfan924]

I'm not saying the PGA Tour doesn't matter, but it should not be the primary focus of the USGA when it comes to rules on equipment.

 

The PGA tour can create it's own technology limits. They don't have to be set-up by the USGA (except for the US Open). How about this for the PGA tour & US Open:

 

Driver head size limit to, say 300 cc

No square grooves

No wedges with more than 55 deg. of loft

Roll back the COR of the ball 5%

 

Then they wouldn't have to create rock hard greens that stimp at 14 and have that mess they had at Shinnecock a couple of years ago.

 

And yes, I think Tiger would still kick eveyone's a** with those limits (maybe even more so). Personally, I'm getting sick of guys hitting 3 and 4 woods on 440 yd. par 4's and having 8 irons in, or hitting Driver into the rough and gouging out with a SW or LW and sticking the green.

[akanacl]

How is it fair to people who can hit find the short grass all the time, and better ball strikers, but lose out to the strayed long hitters?

 

Angel Cabrera

Jim Furyk

Tiger Woods

Niclas Fasth

David Toms

Bubba Watson

Nick Dougherty

Scott Verplank

Jerry Kelly

Justin Rose

Stephen Ames

Paul Casey

Lee Janzen

 

Theres the top 13 finishers in the US open. The ones highlighted in bold are not known for distance being there fortay. The point is they "shorter hitters" are not losing out this is perfect evidence to support that. If you asked anyone on tour what Tiger Woods best attribute is do you think they would say distance? Not a single one would. In fact they would not say that about any of the top 10 in the world. These courses are not setup to reward crooked shots look at Furyks much discussed chip shot on 17 he could barely see the ball....you have to keep it in the fairway to win.

 

A great post for the "bomb and gouge" paranoia gang

[slicefixer]

How is it fair to people who can hit find the short grass all the time, and better ball strikers, but lose out to the strayed long hitters?

 

Angel Cabrera

Jim Furyk

Tiger Woods

Niclas Fasth

David Toms

Bubba Watson

Nick Dougherty

Scott Verplank

Jerry Kelly

Justin Rose

Stephen Ames

Paul Casey

Lee Janzen

 

Theres the top 13 finishers in the US open. The ones highlighted in bold are not known for distance being there fortay. The point is they "shorter hitters" are not losing out this is perfect evidence to support that. If you asked anyone on tour what Tiger Woods best attribute is do you think they would say distance? Not a single one would. In fact they would not say that about any of the top 10 in the world. These courses are not setup to reward crooked shots look at Furyks much discussed chip shot on 17 he could barely see the ball....you have to keep it in the fairway to win.

 

A great post for the "bomb and gouge" paranoia gang

 

 

No offense, but, horsesh#t.........hehehe........using the results from the UNITED STATES OPEN PLAYED @ OAKMONT (hardest course I've set foot upon) to "diss" the opinions of those of us "bomb and gouge "paranoist" ??" Like using an atom bomb as an example of "fireworks"...... :)

[slicefixer]

I'm not saying the PGA Tour doesn't matter, but it should not be the primary focus of the USGA when it comes to rules on equipment.

 

The PGA tour can create it's own technology limits. They don't have to be set-up by the USGA (except for the US Open). How about this for the PGA tour & US Open:

 

Driver head size limit to, say 300 cc

No square grooves

No wedges with more than 55 deg. of loft

Roll back the COR of the ball 5%

 

Then they wouldn't have to create rock hard greens that stimp at 14 and have that mess they had at Shinnecock a couple of years ago.

 

And yes, I think Tiger would still kick eveyone's a** with those limits (maybe even more so). Personally, I'm getting sick of guys hitting 3 and 4 woods on 440 yd. par 4's and having 8 irons in, or hitting Driver into the rough and gouging out with a SW or LW and sticking the green.

 

Personally I think they can "balance" things tremendously by simply eliminating "box" grooves and growing in the rough a bit.......simply "taper" the length of the rough the closer to the fairway you get, like the USGA the past coupla' years.........REWARD accuracy......Let those that wish to "bomb" and don't do it with some degree of accuracy "gouge" their way towards the green with NO "spin"........(btw, IMOP Tiger won't be affected a bit as he'll simply "adjust" and continue to kick a**" :)).......I think it will be funny as hell watching some of these "great" players trying to judge "flyers" with lil or no experience in doing so........"oops, he's 30 yards over the green in the Porta-Potty area Johnny"...... :russian_roulette:

[sergizmo]

I'm not saying the PGA Tour doesn't matter, but it should not be the primary focus of the USGA when it comes to rules on equipment.

 

The PGA tour can create it's own technology limits. They don't have to be set-up by the USGA (except for the US Open). How about this for the PGA tour & US Open:

 

Driver head size limit to, say 300 cc

No square grooves

No wedges with more than 55 deg. of loft

Roll back the COR of the ball 5%

 

Then they wouldn't have to create rock hard greens that stimp at 14 and have that mess they had at Shinnecock a couple of years ago.

 

And yes, I think Tiger would still kick eveyone's a** with those limits (maybe even more so). Personally, I'm getting sick of guys hitting 3 and 4 woods on 440 yd. par 4's and having 8 irons in, or hitting Driver into the rough and gouging out with a SW or LW and sticking the green.

 

A "dual rules" system governing equipment might actually be a pretty good idea. Serious AM and

Pro events can be regulated by the restrictions above. And by "serious AM" I mean state level competition and above, so local tournies would use the equipment we use now.

 

The manufacturers could have two lines of equipment, one that conform to existing rules and one that conforms to the more restrictive ones. As club technology has pretty much hit a wall in the last couple of years, sales might actually increase. Clubs are already capped for COT and MOI. We have titanium and carbon fiber composite heads, moveable weights, and square driver heads. Iron technology has been pretty stagnant for the last while. There is not much room to go from here anyways. The last really meaningful club innovations were hybrids and widespread use of launch monitors for driver fitting, and that was a while ago...

 

The traditionalists who want to play the game like the pros could go out and buy the "new" downgraded equipment (which should be much cheaper; almost no R&D, reduced material costs, reduced manufacturing costs) and the rest of us can continue playing our high tech gear. The OEM"s have a whole new line of clubs to sell, the recreational player can still enjoy the benefits of technology, the old school guys can enjoy the game "as it was meant to be played" and traditional courses are better protected from bomb and gouge.

 

Face it, almost no one wants a rollback. Who the heck wants to go out and buy a new set of irons and new wedges because the USGA let things get out of hand in the first place. That is the whole reason for this situation at the elite level now. Even when they do try to regulate (Ping square groove case) they lose. Why should the average player be punished for the USGA's mistakes?

[cypressperch]

That a bunch of the top finishers in the US Open are shot-makers rather than bomb and gouge players is hardly a surprise. The fairways are more narrow, and you need to get into position to hit into the more receptive areas of each green. Not all courses are set up like this on the tour. Many fans are sickened by the way they set up the US Open because they like to see lots of birdies and eagles and hate it when their idols have to grind it out. I think Tiger is a great player, but the point to which some worship him, well, it IS like worship, and I think it is crazy to get that carried away. On one forum, they were saying that Tiger could beat a two handicap player on that person's home course, spotting the guy two strokes a hole. Tiger has yet to break sixty in competition, so I doubt if he will shoot in the forties any time soon. And by the way, if we could have a time machine available, I do not see Tiger going back in time with modern equipment, shooting consistently in the fifties. No one did back then either which includes all the greats from Jones to Hogan-Snead-Nelson to Arnie to Jack.

 

The old timers in their youth played some very respectable golf with the equipment of that age. I do believe that touch and finesse were more important in producing that very respectable golf back then when compared to today. Tiger hits all sorts of shot shapes which actually makes him similar to the players of those days. Early on, I think Jack was more of a power player than a shot maker, but don't tell him that.

 

Equipment matters. I have played for over fifty years. I have fond memories of my Powerbilt Citation woods and Spalding blades. I usually played a Maxfli red dot golf ball. Today it is Titleist metals, Mizuno irons and wedges, and White Steel putter. It is hard to beat a ProV1, but for sentimental and financial reasons, I like the Black Maxfli at $26 a dozen. I find it amazing that the older me with this new equipment is just about as good as the younger me was with the older equipment thirty or so years ago. I made a big mistake not switching to the new technology sooner. I remember renting a set of clubs at Fort Polk around 1989, and the set had a small, metal head TaylorMade driver. That was the only good club in the bag. On the two front nine par fives, I hit driver-driver on both of them, and made both putts for eagles! I have never had two eagles in one round before or after that. My Powerbilts were in trouble.

 

Some of the bomb and gouge players of today would be in serious trouble with the older equipment. Their shots would be farther from the fairway and in more trouble than they are now. The would be forced to develop more complete games, and if they did not develop them, they could not compete. They would have to hit more shots from the fairway without the U-grooves which make shots from rough easier. They would, including Vjay, have to hit longer irons into the greens rather than wedges. I think Tiger would have won on a regular basis in the Age of Arnie and Jack (really two over-lapping ages), but I think that would be because of his complete game rather than his power. But I still have to wonder how a guy with such a poor percentage of fairway drives can lead in greens in regulation! Grooves?

 

Lastly. Every time the past is compared to the present or tour courses are compared with the typical course folks like me play, the speed of the greens is always spoken of as something making a course far more difficult. I have found that super fast greens that are well-maintained are far easier to make putts on than typical greens. There is something to be said for a SMOOTH GREEN. They role true, and for me, that means fewer putts, not more. Yes, you do have to have some touch, but I still prefer smooth, fast greens over rough, slow greens any day.

 

Sincerely, Cypressperch