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

[jmck]

> @dmecca2 said:

> > Citation needed. Participation numbers are up a little bit in Asia, but you wouldn't know that by looking at the tour. Meanwhile, in both the US and Europe, participation is down significantly since it peaked in '07-08 ish.

> Players are getting better. Just a quick look at scoring averages shows that the tour is deeper today than in say, 1996. In 2018, you dont see a scoring average of 71 until the 115th ranked golfer. In 1996, its the 67th ranked player.

>

 

Golly gee. I wonder if equipment has anything to do with it? Or call it "technology" as a whole, so you can lump agronomy, greens reading books, Trackman, and advanced stat tracking in there as well.

[bscinstnct]

On the KF tour there were

 

20 drives of 400 yards or longer (longest was 421) and

 

175 drives of 375 yards or longer. lol

 

.

 

 

The best combo on the KF tour seems to be scott gutschewski. He averages 310 in distance and hits 70% of the fairways and hits 70% GIR.

 

What? You never heard of him. He turned pro in 1999. Had a few years playing events on the PGA Tour but mostly playing the Web/KF tour.

 

So....

 

Even hitting it far and hitting the fairway is by no means any guarantee of success on the PGA Tour.

 

[dmecca2]

> Golly gee. I wonder if equipment has anything to do with it? Or call it "technology" as a whole, so you can lump agronomy, greens reading books, Trackman, and advanced stat tracking in there as well.

Ok. So by that argument the winning scores would be lower now than in 1996. In 1996 the winning score was -14.44. 2018 it was -16.04. After some digging you can see that winners in 2018 won by 1 stroke or less only 38% of the time, while in 1996 they won by 1 stroke or less 83% of the time. This means the winning score is inflated in 2018 and, therefore, not very different from the winning scores in 1996.

 

So if the winning score was not significantly different than in 1996, its almost like golf courses have adapted to cancel out this "technology". Courses are longer, faster, and harder than they were in 1996. Therefore, there needs to be a different reason the scoring average doesnt hit 71 until the 115th player rather than the 67th. And that reason is simply the depth of talent.

 

 

[Big Ben]

There’s no question Adam is correct. We will continue to see young extremely fit athletes tear courses to pieces with modern balls and equipment. Mix absolutely perfect agronomy and this is what happens. The risk in risk/reward needs to increase. The Players will argue the courses are tricked up but that’s exactly what needs to happen. Thick rough and nasty waste areas will increase the risk of injury. That’s the rub if you choose to pull the driver and take on the corners.

[jmck]

> @dmecca2 said:

> > Golly gee. I wonder if equipment has anything to do with it? Or call it "technology" as a whole, so you can lump agronomy, greens reading books, Trackman, and advanced stat tracking in there as well.

> Ok. So by that argument the winning scores would be lower now than in 1996. In 1996 the winning score was -14.44. 2018 it was -16.04. After some digging you can see that winners in 2018 won by 1 stroke or less only 38% of the time, while in 1996 they won by 1 stroke or less 83% of the time. This means the winning score is inflated in 2018 and, therefore, not very different from the winning scores in 1996.

>

> So if the winning score was not significantly different than in 1996, its almost like golf courses have adapted to cancel out this "technology". Courses are longer, faster, and harder than they were in 1996. Therefore, there needs to be a different reason the scoring average doesnt hit 71 until the 115th player rather than the 67th. And that reason is simply the depth of talent.

>

>

 

WTF? According to you, the winning score in 2018 is 1.6 strokes better now than it was in 1996.......And also according to you that's "not very different" and not "significantly different"? On courses like Augusta and Medina, which have been lengthened by 750+ yards to compensate for improvements in technology in the meantime? Are you serious? Do you have any idea what kinds of crimes the average tour pro would commit to be 0.4 strokes better per round than they currently are? And are you ever going to circle back to your original contention, which was that it's an increasingly large worldwide pool of golfers [citation needed] rather than improvements in technology which makes all of that possible?

 

And this gem: "After some digging you can see that winners in 2018 won by 1 stroke or less only 38% of the time, while in 1996 they won by 1 stroke or less 83% of the time. This means the winning score is inflated in 2018 and, therefore, not very different from the winning scores in 1996." Well that's just a car crash of non-sequiturs if I've ever seen one.

 

I'm out. This discussion is beyond stupid at this point. Adam Scott said what's obvious to anyone with two neurons to rub together, and yet that doesn't stop people from lining up to disagree with him on here.

[JD3]

> @puttingmatt said:

> Adam Scott is right. The driver is the most forgiving club in the bag.

> Makes a good argument for smarter course set ups , instead of just a longer set up.

 

Yeap so simple, more strategically placed and penal bunkers....that's what did rahm in liberty down the stretch. And he's a monster off the tee

[mosesgolf]

> @gvogel said:

> > @mosesgolf said:

> > There were no DB esque athletes playing golf back in the day. :smiley:

>

> Hale Irwin played defensive back at the Universtiy of Colorado.

 

I've often wondered about that. Have you seen Hale Irwin in his prime and how does that physique compare to a modern day DB.?

 

[bscinstnct]

> @mosesgolf said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @mosesgolf said:

> > > There were no DB esque athletes playing golf back in the day. :smiley:

> >

> > Hale Irwin played defensive back at the Universtiy of Colorado.

>

> I've often wondered about that. Have you seen Hale Irwin in his prime and how does that physique compare to a modern day DB.?

>

 

Load up Hale with HGH and he be a roaming death merchant ; )

 

 

 

 

[Itsjustagame]

60 million golfers globally. A couple of thousand hit the ball "to far" and the solution is to change the game for the other 59.9 million players?

[LICC]

> @dmecca2 said:

> > Back then he was the ONLY one maybe Daly too that could do that. Now, most of the field can. The equipment undoubtedly brought the masses to him. Make sense?

> Or maybe the talent pool got bigger as more people became interested in the game and now the 50th ranked golfer today is worlds better than the 50th ranked golfer then.

>

 

Ridiculous. At the end of 1997 the 47th ranked player was Payne Stewart. 50th was Robert Allenby. Currently Alex Noren and Haotong Li hold those positions.

[LICC]

> @dmecca2 said:

> > Golly gee. I wonder if equipment has anything to do with it? Or call it "technology" as a whole, so you can lump agronomy, greens reading books, Trackman, and advanced stat tracking in there as well.

> Ok. So by that argument the winning scores would be lower now than in 1996. In 1996 the winning score was -14.44. 2018 it was -16.04. After some digging you can see that winners in 2018 won by 1 stroke or less only 38% of the time, while in 1996 they won by 1 stroke or less 83% of the time. This means the winning score is inflated in 2018 and, therefore, not very different from the winning scores in 1996.

>

> So if the winning score was not significantly different than in 1996, its almost like golf courses have adapted to cancel out this "technology". Courses are longer, faster, and harder than they were in 1996. Therefore, there needs to be a different reason the scoring average doesnt hit 71 until the 115th player rather than the 67th. And that reason is simply the depth of talent.

>

>

How do you win by less than one stroke?

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @LICC said:

> > @dmecca2 said:

> > > Golly gee. I wonder if equipment has anything to do with it? Or call it "technology" as a whole, so you can lump agronomy, greens reading books, Trackman, and advanced stat tracking in there as well.

> > Ok. So by that argument the winning scores would be lower now than in 1996. In 1996 the winning score was -14.44. 2018 it was -16.04. After some digging you can see that winners in 2018 won by 1 stroke or less only 38% of the time, while in 1996 they won by 1 stroke or less 83% of the time. This means the winning score is inflated in 2018 and, therefore, not very different from the winning scores in 1996.

> >

> > So if the winning score was not significantly different than in 1996, its almost like golf courses have adapted to cancel out this "technology". Courses are longer, faster, and harder than they were in 1996. Therefore, there needs to be a different reason the scoring average doesnt hit 71 until the 115th player rather than the 67th. And that reason is simply the depth of talent.

> >

> >

> How do you win by less than one stroke?

>

 

Statistics

[LICC]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @dmecca2 said:

> > > > Golly gee. I wonder if equipment has anything to do with it? Or call it "technology" as a whole, so you can lump agronomy, greens reading books, Trackman, and advanced stat tracking in there as well.

> > > Ok. So by that argument the winning scores would be lower now than in 1996. In 1996 the winning score was -14.44. 2018 it was -16.04. After some digging you can see that winners in 2018 won by 1 stroke or less only 38% of the time, while in 1996 they won by 1 stroke or less 83% of the time. This means the winning score is inflated in 2018 and, therefore, not very different from the winning scores in 1996.

> > >

> > > So if the winning score was not significantly different than in 1996, its almost like golf courses have adapted to cancel out this "technology". Courses are longer, faster, and harder than they were in 1996. Therefore, there needs to be a different reason the scoring average doesnt hit 71 until the 115th player rather than the 67th. And that reason is simply the depth of talent.

> > >

> > >

> > How do you win by less than one stroke?

> >

>

> Statistics

 

Not in the context of his statement.

[dmecca2]

> How do you win by less than one stroke?

 

Playoff

 

 

[QMany]

 

> > @dmecca2 said:

> > > Back then he was the ONLY one maybe Daly too that could do that. Now, most of the field can. The equipment undoubtedly brought the masses to him. Make sense?

> > Or maybe the talent pool got bigger as more people became interested in the game and now the 50th ranked golfer today is worlds better than the 50th ranked golfer then.

> >

>

> Ridiculous. At the end of 1997 the 47th ranked player was Payne Stewart. 50th was Robert Allenby. Currently Alex Noren and Haotong Li hold those positions.

 

Honestly, do you not think the talent level on the PGA Tour has increased in the last 20-30-40 years? In sports, we talk all the time about the best of each era, i.e. MJ v. LeBron. But I don't think many people would reasonably argue that the 50th best player in the NBA in 1990 is better than the 50th best player in the league today. Would you? I think the talent pool depth has gotten better in every sport. The average MLB fastball has increased considerably in just the last 20 years. In 1979, the fastest 100M dash was 10.01. This year alone, the IAAF has 26 guys not named Usain Bolt that equaled or bettered that. And that doesn't include a Texas highschooler. Why is golf different in some peoples' minds? Nostalgia?

[musclefront]

> @QMany said:

>

> > > @dmecca2 said:

> > > > Back then he was the ONLY one maybe Daly too that could do that. Now, most of the field can. The equipment undoubtedly brought the masses to him. Make sense?

> > > Or maybe the talent pool got bigger as more people became interested in the game and now the 50th ranked golfer today is worlds better than the 50th ranked golfer then.

> > >

> >

> > Ridiculous. At the end of 1997 the 47th ranked player was Payne Stewart. 50th was Robert Allenby. Currently Alex Noren and Haotong Li hold those positions.

>

> Honestly, do you not think the talent level on the PGA Tour has increased in the last 20-30-40 years? In sports, we talk all the time about the best of each era, i.e. MJ v. LeBron. But I don't think many people would reasonably argue that the 50th best player in the NBA in 1990 is better than the 50th best player in the league today. Would you? I think the talent pool depth has gotten better in every sport. The average MLB fastball has increased considerably in just the last 20 years. In 1979, the fastest 100M dash was 10.01. This year alone, the IAAF has 26 guys not named Usain Bolt that equaled or bettered that. And that doesn't include a Texas highschooler. Why is golf different in some peoples' minds? Nostalgia?

 

Maybe the 50th ranked NBA guy is a better 3 point shooter but doubtful he’s a better golfer. And I think Payne Stewart was bettter than Patton kazzire.

[QMany]

Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

[LICC]

> @QMany said:

>

> > > @dmecca2 said:

> > > > Back then he was the ONLY one maybe Daly too that could do that. Now, most of the field can. The equipment undoubtedly brought the masses to him. Make sense?

> > > Or maybe the talent pool got bigger as more people became interested in the game and now the 50th ranked golfer today is worlds better than the 50th ranked golfer then.

> > >

> >

> > Ridiculous. At the end of 1997 the 47th ranked player was Payne Stewart. 50th was Robert Allenby. Currently Alex Noren and Haotong Li hold those positions.

>

> Honestly, do you not think the talent level on the PGA Tour has increased in the last 20-30-40 years? In sports, we talk all the time about the best of each era, i.e. MJ v. LeBron. But I don't think many people would reasonably argue that the 50th best player in the NBA in 1990 is better than the 50th best player in the league today. Would you? I think the talent pool depth has gotten better in every sport. The average MLB fastball has increased considerably in just the last 20 years. In 1979, the fastest 100M dash was 10.01. This year alone, the IAAF has 26 guys not named Usain Bolt that equaled or bettered that. And that doesn't include a Texas highschooler. Why is golf different in some peoples' minds? Nostalgia?

 

No, human evolution doesn't create materially enhanced athletic beings in 20-30-40 years. Maybe there is some marginal improvement in the level of player at the 100-200 level somewhere, but the top 50-60 are the ones really standing out and competing at the top of all tournaments and the talent levels are the same as they have been. And that is the case for every established sport. Newer sports, like MMA for example, of course will have increased talent as the sport goes from very few competitors to more full maturation. But golf, basketball, baseball, track, etc. have similar talent. The 100M dash times are faster because of advances in track material, shoes, blocks. It was studied and determined that adjusting for conditions, Jesse Owens was within one step of Usain Bolt.

[LICC]

> @dmecca2 said:

> > How do you win by less than one stroke?

>

> Playoff

>

>

 

The winner still wins by at least one stroke.

[LICC]

> @QMany said:

> Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

 

Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

[QMany]

Talent pool, money, training, coaching, etc. Athletes get better. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

> @LICC said:

The 100M dash times are faster because of advances in track material, shoes, blocks. It was studied and determined that adjusting for conditions, Jesse Owens was within one step of Usain Bolt.

 

ROLL BACK THE TRACK!!!

[QMany]

> @LICC said:

> > @QMany said:

> > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

>

> Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

 

You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

[dmecca2]

> @QMany said:

> Talent pool, money, training, coaching, etc. Athletes get better. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

>

> > @LICC said:

> The 100M dash times are faster because of advances in track material, shoes, blocks. It was studied and determined that adjusting for conditions, Jesse Owens was within one step of Usain Bolt.

>

> ROLL BACK THE TRACK!!!

 

Maybe they should add a back starting line for runners that average a bit faster than the rest.

[LICC]

> @QMany said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

> >

> > Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

>

> You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

 

They were both excellent. Not sure what you are getting at with your question.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

> @LICC said:

> > @QMany said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

> > >

> > > Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

> >

> > You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

>

> They were both excellent. Not sure what you are getting at with your question.

 

i think the point being payne had the better career, and was a better player in his prime. but if you take payne during the time he was ranked 47th and put him up against a 50th ranked Noren, i think Noren is better.

[LICC]

> @HoosierMizuno said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

> > > >

> > > > Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

> > >

> > > You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

> >

> > They were both excellent. Not sure what you are getting at with your question.

>

> i think the point being payne had the better career, and was a better player in his prime. but if you take payne during the time he was ranked 47th and put him up against a 50th ranked Noren, i think Noren is better.

 

Why? Stewart had 7 top-10 finishes in 1997, top 30 in the US Open and the PGA. So far this year Noren has had one top-10 finish, missed the cut in the Masters and wasn't in the top-50 in the US Open or the PGA.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

> @LICC said:

> > @HoosierMizuno said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

> > > > >

> > > > > Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

> > > >

> > > > You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

> > >

> > > They were both excellent. Not sure what you are getting at with your question.

> >

> > i think the point being payne had the better career, and was a better player in his prime. but if you take payne during the time he was ranked 47th and put him up against a 50th ranked Noren, i think Noren is better.

>

> Why? Stewart had 7 top-10 finishes in 1997, top 30 in the US Open and the PGA. So far this year Noren has had one top-10 finish, missed the cut in the Masters and wasn't in the top-50 in the US Open or the PGA.

 

then i'm assuming his owgr will decline since its based on performances over past year. either way i thing you get the point whether you agree or disagree. i for one don't even think its a debate. todays pga field is much deeper than old.

[farmer]

> @mosesgolf said:

> > @gvogel said:

> > > @mosesgolf said:

> > > There were no DB esque athletes playing golf back in the day. :smiley:

> >

> > Hale Irwin played defensive back at the Universtiy of Colorado.

>

> I've often wondered about that. Have you seen Hale Irwin in his prime and how does that physique compare to a modern day DB.?

>

 

I walked with Hale in a practice round when he would have been 26-27. 5'10", maybe 160-170 lbs. He would look like a child next to a modern safety.

[LICC]

> @HoosierMizuno said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @HoosierMizuno said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > > > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

> > > > >

> > > > > You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

> > > >

> > > > They were both excellent. Not sure what you are getting at with your question.

> > >

> > > i think the point being payne had the better career, and was a better player in his prime. but if you take payne during the time he was ranked 47th and put him up against a 50th ranked Noren, i think Noren is better.

> >

> > Why? Stewart had 7 top-10 finishes in 1997, top 30 in the US Open and the PGA. So far this year Noren has had one top-10 finish, missed the cut in the Masters and wasn't in the top-50 in the US Open or the PGA.

>

> then i'm assuming his owgr will decline since its based on performances over past year. either way i thing you get the point whether you agree or disagree. i for one don't even think its a debate. todays pga field is much deeper than old.

 

It is really not. You have nothing substantial on which to base that conclusion. Especially regarding the top-60 players or so, which is really all that counts when it comes to winning tournaments.

[QMany]

> @LICC said:

> > @HoosierMizuno said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @HoosierMizuno said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > > > > Payne Stewart won one time between 1991 and 1999 (when he was ranked as high as 7th)...

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Do you think Alex Noren is a better golfer than Payne Stewart?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You're cherry-picking data. For example, earlier this year, Rory McIlroy was 8th; do you think he was a worse golfer than Payne Stewart who was ranked 7th in 1999...

> > > > >

> > > > > They were both excellent. Not sure what you are getting at with your question.

> > > >

> > > > i think the point being payne had the better career, and was a better player in his prime. but if you take payne during the time he was ranked 47th and put him up against a 50th ranked Noren, i think Noren is better.

> > >

> > > Why? Stewart had 7 top-10 finishes in 1997, top 30 in the US Open and the PGA. So far this year Noren has had one top-10 finish, missed the cut in the Masters and wasn't in the top-50 in the US Open or the PGA.

> >

> > then i'm assuming his owgr will decline since its based on performances over past year. either way i thing you get the point whether you agree or disagree. i for one don't even think its a debate. todays pga field is much deeper than old.

>

> It is really not. You have nothing substantial on which to base that conclusion. Especially regarding the top-60 players or so, which is really all that counts when it comes to winning tournaments.

 

Just common sense.