Adam Scott on why driving is no longer a skill in pro golf

[LICC]

> @twidener said:

> I saw Johnny Miller play in person back in the early 70's and he did not swing that hard. His swing was smooth and in person he looked to be swinging at about 80%. What made him look like he swung hard was how fast his hip turn was and his footwork. He rolled to the outside of his left foot even on half-wedge shots. The only time I ever saw him swing what would be considered full out was when he was in deep rough. In the persimmon era none of the very best players swung all out, even Nicklaus or Palmer. Palmer swung hard but not all out. It was always under control. The dynamics of the persimmon clubs plus the balata ball made it very risky to go all out on a tee shot. The ball spun so much that a slight mishit could hook or slice 40 yards or more off line. The way you had to play back then was more for control than distance. Also back then the professional and good amateur golfers would change the ball after 3 holes. That's how quickly the ball would get out of round. You don't have to worry about that with the ball today.

 

@Shilgy here you go.

Nicklaus has written how with the old driver he wouldn't swing close to 100% except in rare cases.

[JD3]

This started way before titanium drivers. MAKE HAZARDS AGAIN.....STOP RAKING BUNKERS!

[bscinstnct]

I think many are overlooking the fact that BK and Rory don't hit many fairways, not because they can't, but because they don't need to. They go full tilt on driver because they take what the course gives them.

 

But they are still great ball strikers with tremendous accuracy and can work the ball...if they need to be.

 

How do I know?

 

Because they are both great long iron players who can work the ball and control trajectory.

 

Set up short courses with lots of rough and narrow fairways. That's the answer?

 

I think there is good likelihood that Rory, BK, DJ, etc make much more of a joke out of them than the longer courses. They would just focus their practice more on hitting fairways, they would take 3-wood, they would do what they needed to to be in the fairway. Rory with a 3 wood would be as long as the shorter hitters with driver AND be more accurate. Defeats the whole purpose. And the longer hitters still have the advantage of hitting their irons farther.

 

There is no simple answer.

[RobS14526]

People bring up bifurcation as a possible path forward. How would that work? Where would you draw the line in the amateur tournaments? If you’re trying to qualify for the US Am are you subject to bifurcated equipment? Division III tournaments?

[gvogel]

> @RobS14526 said:

> People bring up bifurcation as a possible path forward. How would that work? Where would you draw the line in the amateur tournaments? If you’re trying to qualify for the US Am are you subject to bifurcated equipment? Division III tournaments?

 

The USGA has already defined "expert players". They are the players that needed to adhere to the new groove rule when it was first adopted. Expert players are tour pros, and amateurs trying to qualify for any USGA championship. The definition is probably in the USGA rule book.

 

The groove rule G-2 may also be adopted by committees holding local, state and regional amateur tournaments. So these players as well have to adhere to the revised groove rule; it depends upon the committee running the tournament.

 

So the bifurcated drivers and balls would apply to "expert" players. For league play or club championships, the 460 cc driver would probably be OK.

[gvogel]

By the way, if the driver head size is scaled back, and pros go back to swinging 80% or 85%, it will probably lengthen careers. Swinging 100% had to be tough on the back, knees and ankles over a period of time.

[bladehunter]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @mosesgolf said:

> > > Today's Tour players is much more athletic than yesteryear's player. Justin Thomas vs Tom Kite. Rory McElroy vs Ben Crenshaw. Brooks Koepka vs ? DJ vs ?

> > > Most of yesteryear's tour players can't sniff 120mph clubhead speeds and 180mph ball speeds with today's equipment. Different era different athlete folks.

> >

> > Nonsense. Gary Player. Arnold Palmer. Mike Souchek. Nicklaus was measured at 118mph clubhead speed at age 58. It’s the equipment that is responsible for 90%+ of the distance gains.

>

> Gary Player was long?? He is a great of the game but was not long. Notice in the post you replied to he said "most". "Most" is not a synonym for "all". Bottom line is that there are more long hitters in todays game because they also have the rest of the game. In the past the long hitters were more of an oddity-or a legend of the game like Jack Jones and Snead.

> But even you have now said it is at 90% blame goes to equipment. So at least you are acknowledging player gains compared to the past. There are definitely more athletes playing the game. Or better phrased the players are taking a more athletic approach to the game. Players of the past-except of course Gary Player and few others-were concerned that working out and being more fit would harm their short game. That is would somehow harm the feel they had. Trainers now know that to be not true and most of the players take advantage of that.

 

Come on man. Surely you’ve heard the phrase “ Rory is the new gary player”. I mean both are little guy fitness nuts that hit a hook. What’s not the same ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

( lol total and complete sarcasm man.).

 

 

 

 

[Potatohead]

Has anyone ever thought about staggered rough? Why don't they do something like, 3" rough out to 270 yards, 4" rough 270-300, and 5" rough 300+?

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @twidener said:

> > I saw Johnny Miller play in person back in the early 70's and he did not swing that hard. His swing was smooth and in person he looked to be swinging at about 80%. What made him look like he swung hard was how fast his hip turn was and his footwork. He rolled to the outside of his left foot even on half-wedge shots. The only time I ever saw him swing what would be considered full out was when he was in deep rough. In the persimmon era none of the very best players swung all out, even Nicklaus or Palmer. Palmer swung hard but not all out. It was always under control. The dynamics of the persimmon clubs plus the balata ball made it very risky to go all out on a tee shot. The ball spun so much that a slight mishit could hook or slice 40 yards or more off line. The way you had to play back then was more for control than distance. Also back then the professional and good amateur golfers would change the ball after 3 holes. That's how quickly the ball would get out of round. You don't have to worry about that with the ball today.

>

> @Shilgy here you go.

> Nicklaus has written how with the old driver he wouldn't swing close to 100% except in rare cases.

 

lol Bubba does not think he swings all out either. None of them do. But hey-I give. We have discussed this ad nauseum over the years-along with many subjects. I have no desire to continue more of this useless bickering that accomplishes nothing as all of us have our beliefs and none are inherently incorrect. For the record I too watched the guys in the 60's and 70's and they swung all out as much as the current crop.

So there ya go....

[ThinkingPlus]

This would be my approach. While not helping existing courses, changes in course architecture could help address this issue. GCAs will need to utilize more hazard features that torture the pros rather than distance (pros are immune) or deep rough (boring, unwatchable golf). Firm and fast is a good start. Most all par 4s and 5s need to be doglegs (subtle or severe). Next add pot bunkers, tall grass/shrubs, dense tree stands, etc... adjacent to the fairways in the favored driving areas. Sprinkle pot bunkers and grass bunkers around each green. Use water hazards as a last resort.

 

Why would this work? Well firm and fast fairways plus doglegs implies shot shaping or you will miss fairways. The pot bunkers, trees, fescue, etc... will add half to a full shot for missing the fairway. Grass and pot bunkers greenside add uncertainty to pitches and chips. Standard bunkers are too easy for the pros (greenside or fairway). The bottom line is that these types of features compel strategy off the tee and adds uncertainty when playing from errant drives.

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @Potatohead said:

> Has anyone ever thought about staggered rough? Why don't they do something like, 3" rough out to 270 yards, 4" rough 270-300, and 5" rough 300+?

 

I like the idea, but it has to be a little more nuanced than that. I don't like uniformly penalizing the long hitter just because he hits it long. I think there still has to be risk/reward at every level. Perhaps 5'' rough between 300 and 330 yards out, but no rough beyond that. The idea being that you have to tempt the longer hitters to go for it, but still penalize them if they "miss" it. "Miss" is in quotes because I can't believe a 300 yd drive is a miss.

 

Another idea. Kinda radical, but easily implemented. What about a PGA Tour local rule that if you hit a ball into the spectators (i.e., outside the roped area) then the ball is deemed lost? This accomplishes 3 things. (1) It tightens the course for everyone. (2) It makes the rough more fair by not having trampled down rough that is shorter than the rough just off the fairway. (3) It brings back strategy to the tee shot.

[bscinstnct]

> @Potatohead said:

> Has anyone ever thought about staggered rough? Why don't they do something like, 3" rough out to 270 yards, 4" rough 270-300, and 5" rough 300+?

 

Or how bout the starter just kicks BK and Rory in the nuts before they tee off ; )

[Krt22]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @Potatohead said:

> > Has anyone ever thought about staggered rough? Why don't they do something like, 3" rough out to 270 yards, 4" rough 270-300, and 5" rough 300+?

>

> Or how bout the starter just kicks BK and Rory in the nuts before they tee off ; )

 

Might as well just give participation trophies to everyone at that point. Progressive penalties based on length? Egads. Even then, the long guys will just hit their driving iron out to 270 where the short knockers are hitting woods, they will still have a shorter club in their hand and they will still likely shoot a lower score.

[geesecougar2]

Yes he's right, but so what? Why should we care that the Medinahs are being ripped to shreds?

 

This only matters insofar as the best ranked, most successful players, or even the players that keep tour cards, are no longer who the best players "should" be: the ones with the complete game. The game benefits when there are a few superstars heads and shoulders above the rest, when there are big names that remain on tour year after year after year. It doesn't do anyone any good to have a bunch of parity out there or no-names getting in year after year.

 

Right now it looks like there are still superstars but the parity seems to be increasing year after year. Seems like veterans are losing their cards at a higher rate, that young guns are coming in and winning then disappearing again. This aligns with Tiger's POV that you need to play aggressively and look for "four or five good weeks".

 

Definitely need to keep an eye on it. Conditions and rules need to be geared toward promoting the best players to excel.

[c7015]

> @twidener said:

> I saw Johnny Miller play in person back in the early 70's and he did not swing that hard. His swing was smooth and in person he looked to be swinging at about 80%. What made him look like he swung hard was how fast his hip turn was and his footwork. He rolled to the outside of his left foot even on half-wedge shots. The only time I ever saw him swing what would be considered full out was when he was in deep rough. In the persimmon era none of the very best players swung all out, even Nicklaus or Palmer. Palmer swung hard but not all out. It was always under control. The dynamics of the persimmon clubs plus the balata ball made it very risky to go all out on a tee shot. The ball spun so much that a slight mishit could hook or slice 40 yards or more off line. The way you had to play back then was more for control than distance. Also back then the professional and good amateur golfers would change the ball after 3 holes. That's how quickly the ball would get out of round. You don't have to worry about that with the ball today.

 

all of that could be said about today's players, the ball might not spin as much but the clubhead speed is faster so that even 1 degree open closed creates a big miss. If distance and accuracy were easy we would all drive it like Rory (even Adam would, which he does not)

Indian not the Arrow

[gvogel]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @twidener said:

> > > I saw Johnny Miller play in person back in the early 70's and he did not swing that hard. His swing was smooth and in person he looked to be swinging at about 80%. What made him look like he swung hard was how fast his hip turn was and his footwork. He rolled to the outside of his left foot even on half-wedge shots. The only time I ever saw him swing what would be considered full out was when he was in deep rough. In the persimmon era none of the very best players swung all out, even Nicklaus or Palmer. Palmer swung hard but not all out. It was always under control. The dynamics of the persimmon clubs plus the balata ball made it very risky to go all out on a tee shot. The ball spun so much that a slight mishit could hook or slice 40 yards or more off line. The way you had to play back then was more for control than distance. Also back then the professional and good amateur golfers would change the ball after 3 holes. That's how quickly the ball would get out of round. You don't have to worry about that with the ball today.

> >

> > @Shilgy here you go.

> > Nicklaus has written how with the old driver he wouldn't swing close to 100% except in rare cases.

>

> lol Bubba does not think he swings all out either. None of them do. But hey-I give. We have discussed this ad nauseum over the years-along with many subjects. I have no desire to continue more of this useless bickering that accomplishes nothing as all of us have our beliefs and none are inherently incorrect. For the record I too watched the guys in the 60's and 70's and they swung all out as much as the current crop.

> So there ya go....

 

Yes, but only the ladies were up on their toes at impact in the 60's and 70's. So there's that.

[Pepperturbo]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > I agree 100% with Adam Scott. Tour golf has gotten out of hand, even boring. Tour stop courses need to be designed or set up in such a manner, ALL touring pros are forced to challenge themselves off the tee and from the rough, instead, the PGA coddles tour players by making them feel invincible, and make decisions to satisfy sponsors. The media mouths were more excited than many of us watching yesterday. I love golf but didn't watch most of the BMW because it was nearly boring. Not much in the way of actual shot-making, like Tiger, used to show us.

> >

> > Yesterday, I had to laugh watching tour guys use 4 and 5 iron to hit moon-shots on that 248-yard Par 3, and reaching 600+ yard Par 5 in two and the second club was an iron or 3 wood. The PGA tour leadership is slowing making the professional aspect of the game look silly. These days the only people that remain fascinated by pros going 22 under and hitting 300+ drives on a 7700-yard course are people that don't understand the lengths to which the tour goes to create "these guys are good."

>

> What exactly about the course setup enabled them to reach the 600 yard plus par five in two? What part of the course setup enable them to "4 and 5 iron to hit moon-shots on that 248-yard Par 3". Since you are blaming the tour setup guys what did they do incorrectly?

 

Setup guys did NOTHING incorrectly. They are told by leadership how to set up certain holes to enhance unrealistic distances and make players appear as though "these guys are good" marketing theme. They shave fairways and often reverse grain on long holes to ensure the ball travels down grain. They need to tighten fairways too, so when a player leaks one right or left there's a consequence. Landing in the apron is no consequence. I've played tour venues after an event and in some Pro-Ams. I hit the ball 245+; there is no way a man my age should hit it 275 yards without serious help.

 

Obstacles must challenge the whole field, not most of the guys and the long hitters fly them. Not much could be done with the Par 3, except it's elevated just enough to allow 4-5 iron moon shots when any reasonable player knows they don't hit those two irons that far on flat terrain.

[Soloman1]

It won't be long until the PGA Tour is no longer played on old-style outdoor golf courses. Every pro will play his round on a simulator at his home with cameras to record every swing of every player for the TV crews.

 

No one will have better weather and vagaries of wind will be eliminated. The course can programmed to be any length and any roll condition - all the same in the interest of "fairness." All the shots are uploaded in realtime to the scoring robot.

 

No caddies, no hotels, no travel, no mud on the ball, no bad lies, no fans or professional autograph seekers, no nothin'.

 

[musclefront]

> @JD3 said:

> This started way before titanium drivers. MAKE HAZARDS AGAIN.....STOP RAKING BUNKERS!

 

Umm no.

[Shakespeare]

I remember a pro at the Bob Hope classic in the 70's hit s 1 iron on a hole that started straight and curved 50 yards OB. He said it must have had a small cut in the cover from his previous wedge shot. Im just saying the ball doesnt curve as much.. obviously..and if it did, pros would maybe think twice about pulling driver...maybe..on a side note..the new hollow irons would work great with the old balata balls...more spin with lower trajectory i think.

[smashdn]

> @bladehunter said:

> Lol. I’m glad I can give you guys something to chew on this evening.

>

> It still amazes me how many claim that equipment makes zero difference. And yet those same Guys will fight against any change tooth and nail. If it doesn’t matter , then why does it matter ?

 

It absolutely matters. Go grab a 42.5" or 43" persimmon driver and try and hit that big bombing fade. There'll be no 330 yard carries. You won't be going over trees if you want that distance.

 

> @JD3 said:

> It's beyond the driver why course length is less a factor these days ....the ball and other equipment is so good, 7 iron is the stock shot from 195 for better stronger players. So overall I agree with what he's saying...length in and of itself isn't much of a factor in making a course harder.

 

We have to be careful saying 8 iron goes this and 7 iron this. I've bitten my tongue (fingers?) for a while not bringing this up but the lofts are not the same as 20, 15 or even ten years ago. I don't want to get into the jacked lofts debate here cause it is not valuable to the point but even the dumb announcers don't take it into account. "JT just hit an 8 iron 181 yards. Wow, in my day that was a good 5 iron or a smoked 6."

 

Are the clubs better? Sure. But a blade iron is a blade iron. A Staff forged iron in the same loft as a new Titleist MB are comparable.

 

I agree the ball is a big difference too. No smilers, urethane covers that grip the grooves and produce spin when you want it and drivers with no grooves to take it off when you don't want it and computer designed aerodynamically superior dimple patterns.

 

> @Krt22 said:

 

> I've never said it makes zero difference, I'm just saying it's not the only difference and not nearly as significant as some like to think. The entire game has changed, not just the clubs, but the players, their conditioning, their approach, and how they utilize tech to perform at the highest level and get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes. COR has been maxed for years, yet scores still are dropping and this debate gets rehashed over and over. The groves in wedges changed, yet the pros can still zip them back like crazy. People say the ball doesnt spin enough, yet the best pros are the one's who who can control their spin and ball flight

>

> Golfwrx posters-No need for a new driver, they are all the same, COR has been the limit for years, I still hit my 910D2 as long as anything new!

>

> Also

>

> Golfwrx posters-The clubs and ball are too dang long, no skill needed!

 

COR is maxed but there are other factors that club designers are controlling that, coupled with max COR they are still getting distance gains. The face COR is limited, true. Let's say it has been constant for ten years, which I think is pretty correct. The ability to control all the other deflection in the face that uses energy did not exist. The golf club deflects when it hits the ball, both inwardly at the face but also upwards at the crown and downwards towards the sole and to a lesser extent side to side. Any deflection in those directions is "stealing" some of the power you put into the swing that is not transferred to the back of the ball. Think the flubber in the sole channel on Adams, some TM and some Titleist drivers. The bars that are "jailbreak technology" behind the face of Callaway clubs restrain the upward and downward deflection as well. Variable face thickness adds rigidity to the face in places so it can help hold the crown and sole more stable.

 

Plus aerodynamics are better. Shafts can be made lighter and stiffer. Heads are larger but lighter as well. All creates incrementally more speed.

 

See above regarding the ball. It spins when they want it to, when they engage the cover with those grooves but doesn't spin as much when they don't need it to, with driver.

 

For whatever reason I hit my 913d2 about the same distance as my TM R7 but the consistency is so much better with the newer club not to mention the better adjustability.

[smashdn]

> @mosesgolf said:

> Today's Tour players is much more athletic than yesteryear's player. Justin Thomas vs Tom Kite. Rory McElroy vs Ben Crenshaw. Brooks Koepka vs ? DJ vs ?

> Most of yesteryear's tour players can't sniff 120mph clubhead speeds and 180mph ball speeds with today's equipment. Different era different athlete folks.

 

Is homogeneity in the pro game good? Seems that the body-style is the product not the cause. In order to win, you have to bomb it. In order to bomb it you have to be athletic and fit and fast with the driver. The way to win dictates how you have to play, how you have to swing and what shots you need to have.

 

Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw, Zach Johnson, Corey Pavin, Ray Floyd, Seve - they were all winners in different ways. You could excel at really any one aspect of the game and potentially be a winner on Tour. Now there is only one way at 90% of the courses they play. Davis Love III didn't dominate every tournament he entered even though he was very long off the tee in his day. There were other ways to win then. Tiger didn't always win by being the longest driver of the ball though he was significantly longer in his prime than most of the field. He dominated because he could hit long irons accurately, both off the tee and into the greens. He could lay back with a long iron then hit an iron longer than his opponent just as close as his opponent with a shorter club in his hands.

 

I'll say it again, long courses reward long hitters. Short courses every player has a chance as distance is less of a factor in winning.

[Jifmoli]

Quite frankly I don't care pros hit - 30 or so. That's why they are good and I ain't. Rolling back equipment will make my costly equipment obsolete which i don't want and pros using different stuff makes that i have no way of comparing my game with theirs. Changing courses to curvy ones is just as expensive as making them longer. I guess playing with rough conditions and perhaps adding fairway bunkers at key distances may be an option. Better carry that drive 320 or lay up. A month or 2 before the pros show up, cut the fairway a lot narrower to make driving accuracy key. After that, cut as normal for the regular players

[smashdn]

> @QMany said:

> I am not in favor of rolling anything back. I can't imagine how it would effect the current stars who have pretty much played nothing but the current equipment (Rory, JT, Spieth, Rahm, Brooks, etc.), the marketability of the Tour, and a slew of other considerations. But I would support regulations on the spin curve, which is what you seem to be proposing; halt it where it is now.

 

How would it be different than when everyone made the switch from persimmon to metal? You adapt or fade away. Granted it would be more like a bandage being ripped off than a gradual change.

 

 

[smashdn]

> @bscinstnct said:

> I think there is good likelihood that Rory, BK, DJ, etc make much more of a joke out of them than the longer courses. They would just focus their practice more on hitting fairways, they would take 3-wood, they would do what they needed to to be in the fairway. Rory with a 3 wood would be as long as the shorter hitters with driver AND be more accurate. Defeats the whole purpose. And the longer hitters still have the advantage of hitting their irons farther.

>

> There is no simple answer.

 

You are correct to extent. It takes a superior golfer with better control of his ball to beat someone who is hitting a shorter iron or two into the greens, but with skill they can do it. So if Rory is forced to hit 3 wood or an iron to keep it in the fairway and I can still equal him distance wise with a well placed drive we are far more equal than Rory outdriving me by 30-40 yards every hole.

 

Driving distance is the largest differentiation when it comes to winning on Tour. It correlates most with winning when looked at from a whole season perspective.

[jmck]

> @mosesgolf said:

> Today's Tour players is much more athletic than yesteryear's player. Justin Thomas vs Tom Kite. Rory McElroy vs Ben Crenshaw. Brooks Koepka vs ? DJ vs ?

> Most of yesteryear's tour players can't sniff 120mph clubhead speeds and 180mph ball speeds with today's equipment. Different era different athlete folks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jmck]

And in case my point above is too subtle, here are some numbers:

 

1991 was the first year Daly had enough rounds to count for stats. He lead the tour in driving distance at 289 yards. Norman was 2nd at 282, and Couples was 3rd at 281. That was it over 280--only those three. For comparison, a full decade earlier in 1981, Dan Pohl lead the tour at 280 yards, with Couples 2nd at 278. Here's another comparison: in 2019 there are 184 players (essentially the whole tour and then some) averaging 280+.

 

From '91 to '96 Daly lead the tour every year, varying up and down a little bit but never topping 290.

 

In 1997 Daly magically picked up 12-15 yards (302 total), and Tiger (in his first year with enough rounds to count) was 2nd at 295. Those were the only two at 290+. Currently there are 134 players (essentially the whole tour and then some) at 290+.

 

Daly was the ONLY person to average 299+ yards from 1997 to 2002.

 

In 2003 15 players magically averaged 299+ yards (including Adam Scott in his first full year on tour). That doesn't include Fred Couples, with a blown out back, averaging 293. That's 12 yards longer than he was in 1991--when he was 12 years younger and had a good back--and 15 yards longer than he was as a 22 year old in relatively great shape way back in 1981.

 

By 2005 it's 27 players averaging over 299 yards, and now in 2019 it's 57 players.

 

If you think "fitness" rather than equipment is the big difference maker from '91 to '97, then from '97 to '02, then from '03 to '19......please PM me, I have an attractively priced bridge which I'm desperate to sell at a loss.

[jmck]

Here's a guy--an athlete if you will--who blows it by what John Daly was doing in '91-'96, and what Couples did from 1981 to 2001. He's averaging 292.4 this year (good for 108th on tour!), no doubt thanks to his athletic ability. The 2019 version of THIS GUY using his 2019 equipment would've lead driving distance on tour every year from time immemorial up to 1997. Same for all the 107 guys ranked in front of him. But yeah, must be fitness making the difference.

 


 

 

[jmck]

So yeah, this athlete here (and 100+ other guys!):


Are all 10-40 yards longer than this schlub ever was:


 

[Krt22]

Lot's of correlation, not all causation. Again, no one is saying the equipment isnt helping, we are saying it's not just the equipment. A few cherry picked stats doesnt change that