Mac O'Grady: Off the Deap End?

[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

 

 

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"...... ;)

yes my regrets.."paranoia" was too harsh. I pulled a Mac..lol

 

27 events this year so far:

 

Tiger has won three. Three players longer than Tiger have won. Charles Howell III, Nickey Watney and Adam Scott. The other 21 winners are shorter than Tiger.

 

David Toms leads in top ten finishes with 7...133rd driving distance

Scott Verplank- 6 top tens..158th driving distance

Jim Furyk- 6 top tens.....173rd driving distance

Jerry Kelly- 6 top tens....155th

Luke Donald- 5 tops tens....166th

Jeff Quinney- 5......102nd

 

The plinkers are managing just fine....a rising tide lifts all boats

 

 

A rising tide lifts all boats...

[hayam]

The best short game and putting still will be the winner, this will be true anyway . BUT getting close to green will help in getting closer to the hole, short game and thus have far superior advantage. The function of the rough is to hinder players from playing effectively by being inaccurate and they should be rewarded for playing good tactical fairway hits. The problem is still, wedge from the rough is preferred to mid irons from short rough or fairway hits.

 

By no means these statistic means anything. I read from Jeff Hull that they only take 2 drives in a round for statistic? It a little misleading these numbers. You still can "manage" the game when your not that long. But being Accurate off the tee is not a requirements to win. Being long and In-accurate became can still be an advantage. Being LONG and Accurate should be rewarded accordingly.

[larrybud]

Its not simply the equipments making the person a "Better" player. It changes the way the game have to be played. And the sets of skills required to play the game.

 

Mac Pointing out Tiger is as clear as an example that people can miss fairways yet long can still win the Major, it became a wedge and putting competition. The game no longer reward better ball striker and shot maker.

 

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?

 

Most of you here are just reacting to the Matchplay incidence, and not reading carefully. and Mac is not the first person who said this.

 

The point you and Mac is missing is that everybody has the same "advantage". If people can miss fairways yet can still win majors, why does Tiger's trophy case have 12 of them and no other active player is even close?

 

The other point is that why does anybody think that the technological advancements of today are any less valid than the technological advancements of Nicklaus' and Palmer's era? I mean, those guys beat the records of the Bobby Jones' era, and they had better equipment and better maintained golf courses than in the 30's.

 

3rd, the field of today is certainly deeper than from the 60's or 70's, just on the fact that there are more people in the world, and more people playing golf. Add in the better teaching at more levels of the game, from juniors to high school to college, and you've got many more better trained players now. That's why records in all sports eventually fall.

 

BTW, notice this crazy "technology" didn't help Mac in qualifying for the Buick. Maybe talent has something to do with success after all.

[larrybud]

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.

 

Wait a minute, didn't you hit 17* hybrid about 275 last night, and a Driver-7 iron on an uphill 480 yard par 5!!!?!?!

 

Maybe you should play with your 40 year old 2 iron next week ;-)

[hook_or_slice]

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.

 

 

Doesn't seem that qualified, if he declined the opportunity to teach Tiger. Think he might be regreting the

worst decision any golf teacher ever made?

[dlygrisse]

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.)

 

I broke out my copy of Shells Hogan vs Snead the other night, I hadn't watched it in years, and I couldn't believe how horrible their putting strokes looked, especially Sneads. I have literally seen better putting strokes at putt putt courses watching people with no clue. Snead looked like he was aimed dead straight on every putt and then pulled or pushed the ball to the correct line, now I know why he switched to side saddle putting.

 

Hogan didn't hit too many shots stiff, but it seemed every drive was in the middle of the fairway and that every shot to the green was pin high 10 to 15 feet. He was never in danger of making bogey. I will say that the course was playing slow, it rained in the middle of the match, it was long, but the fairways were very wide and the greens huge.

 

As for OGrady, it seems to me the guy just doesnt get it, golf is a game of getting the ball in the hole not making pretty swings on the range. Sure it is great to study the swing, learn, teach and become a great ball striker, but if you cant chip and putt you cant play golf at a high level, which Tiger can do and OGrady always struggled with. If OGrady had half the short game as Tiger he would be border line hall of fame. The whole thing sounds like pure jealosy and immaturity to me.

 

If he was trying to make the point some of you said he was trying to make he sure went about it the wrong way....why would you blame Tiger? The guy obviously wins because of his ability to focus, and get the ball in the hole better than anyone in history except maybe Jones or Nicklaus. Tiger is playing the hand he was dealt, if he would have grown up in another era his game might have been different. BTW, Tiger still uses blades, and was one of the last players to switch to graphite shafts and 460 cc drivers, he is probably one of the most traditional players on tour when it comes to equipment. If players were required to use persimmion I bet Woods might win by a larger margin.

[fats]

I'm always in Mac's corner as he taught me a lot. He's off the charts with this one but in his defense he really doesn't have any malice for Tiger or anyone else. Well, maybe Leadbetter, but that's another story ROFL

[Asleep]

...Mac...doesn't have any malice for Tiger or anyone else. Well, maybe Leadbetter...

Mac will really be shaking his head when he sees Jerry Tarde's, chairman and editor-in-chief of Golf Digest, August 2007 list:

 

Top 5 most influential teachers alive today

1. Leadbetter

2. Bob Toski

3. Mac O'Grady

4. John Jacobs

5. Dave Pelz

[Asleep]

Interesting exercise relevant to the topic:

 

Clubs from the '80s bring round in 80s for Snedeker -- USA TODAY

[scores]

Hi asleep

 

Great post I enjoyed that article and heard all about it. A player of this much talent telling people that golfers are not getting all that much better and maybe equipment has a lot to do with the lower scores. There are some great courses that have not been able to keep up with the new equipment and it's knda ashame and that's mostlikely another thread(a great thread). Championship courses ruined by the equipment and championship courses born out of need to protect par!

[marionmg]

[quote name='Asleep' post='648408' date='Jul 23 2007, 08:54 AM']Interesting exercise relevant to the topic:

[url="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/pga/2007-07-12-oldclubs_N.htm"]Clubs from the '80s bring round in 80s for Snedeker -- USA TODAY[/url][/quote]


Well he was only 5 shots worse and I doubt he was fitted with the old clubs or had any real significant practice time with them. The more interesting stat would be 1000 rounds with modern equipment vs. 1000 rounds with old equipment. I can shoot 75 with my big driver and cavity backs just as easy as I can shoot 80 with the same technology. So, it's not really that interesting to compare just 2 rounds of golf and claim it to be gospel.

Tiger and many others on tour play blades. The only thing they can really change is the ball and drivers. The ProV1 changed everything, more so than the driver IMO. I guess grooves changed the game some too....but my mac daddy wedges seem to screw me as much as they help me.

Anyway, interesting topic, but Tiger would win no matter what he played....v grooves balatas 300cc drivers, etc b/c everyone else would have to play them too.