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

[QMany]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QMany said:

> > Adam Scott:

> > * 2018: 13th in Clubhead Speed (120.85), 44th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > * 2019: 20th in Clubhead Speed (120.29), 33rd in Strokes Gained OTT.

> >

> > Dustin Johnson:

> > * 2018: 10th in Clubhead Speed (121.38), 1st in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > * 2019: T30 in Clubhead Speed (119.19), 5th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> >

> > MAYBE there is a little more skill involved than Adam Scott realizes.

>

> What’s the difference in the two strokes gained metrics ? I bet it’s less than a shot.

>

> I assume your suggesting that the skill level from 1st to 33rd is a huge gap in skill ?

 

While yes, less than a shot difference, that is still a large variance.

 

In 2019, DJ is gaining 0.376 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging 1.1 MPH slower). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT is more than the difference between AS and Kiradech Aphibarnrat who is ranked 117th.

 

In 2018, DJ gained 0.619 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging only 0.53 MPH faster). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT was more than the difference between AS and Ben Crane/William McGirt ranked 164/165th.

 

 

[jmck]

> @Soloman1 said:

>

>

>

>

 

Came here to post that chart. It blows me away that people still insist it's fitness or "evolution" or some sort of world-wide population explosion rather than the equipment. Oversized titanium heads added 10-15 yards with the old balls. The new balls added another 10-15 on top of that. It's right there in the chart. If they kept those stats before 1980, that line would be flat all the way back to the introduction of the steel shaft.

 

Modern drivers and balls absolutely take skill out of the game. With the old equipment you had to absolutely button a driver, so you swung within yourself because there was a massive penalty for missing a driver by an inch. That was how you kept the ball in play, by swinging at less than 100%. That's what separated someone like Norman from his peers. He could swing 100% and still button a driver, almost every time. Very very few people on tour could--take a look at someone like Nick Faldo hitting a driver in the 80s or early to mid 90s. Dude was like 6'2" and 200 lbs. solid and look at how gentle he goes at a driver. Now everyone--from Rory to Webb Simpson--swings 100% all the time and it doesn't matter if they miss by 1 or 2". There's no real penalty for it. If another Norman came along, he's got no advantage over his peers. The equipment doesn't separate an tour-average ball striker from a superlative one.

 

On top of that, the penalty for missing with the old equipment grew worse the faster you swung. With the old equipment at a 90mph driver swing speed if you missed by 1" you could find the ball. At 120mph miss by an 1" and it's off the planet. It's counter-intuitive, but the old equipment actually reduced the gap between pros and ams.

 

Likewise, if you don't want to roll back equipment, the solution is counter-intuitive: shorter courses, not longer courses: [https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/](https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/ "https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/")

 

If you want to roll back equipment, the easiest solution is a minimum spin test for balls. They already test for maximum velocity, just add a minimum spin test. Say 3000 rpms with a 10* driver at 120mph with a 0* AoA. That'd be all you need to do and it wouldn't effect ams nearly as much as pros. It wouldn't roll things all the way back to a pre-titanium days, but it'd add some curve back to the game and make pros think twice before swinging 100% with a driver--i.e., it would add some of the strategy back, and reward not just strategy but skill as well.

 

A driver shouldn't be easier to hit than a lob wedge, but right now miss a lob wedge by an inch or two and it's worse for your score than missing driver by an inch or two.

[bladehunter]

> @QMany said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > > Adam Scott:

> > > * 2018: 13th in Clubhead Speed (120.85), 44th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > * 2019: 20th in Clubhead Speed (120.29), 33rd in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > >

> > > Dustin Johnson:

> > > * 2018: 10th in Clubhead Speed (121.38), 1st in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > * 2019: T30 in Clubhead Speed (119.19), 5th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > >

> > > MAYBE there is a little more skill involved than Adam Scott realizes.

> >

> > What’s the difference in the two strokes gained metrics ? I bet it’s less than a shot.

> >

> > I assume your suggesting that the skill level from 1st to 33rd is a huge gap in skill ?

>

> While yes, less than a shot difference, that is still a large variance.

>

> In 2019, DJ is gaining 0.376 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging 1.1 MPH slower). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT is more than the difference between AS and Kiradech Aphibarnrat who is ranked 117th.

>

> In 2018, DJ gained 0.619 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging only 0.53 MPH faster). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT was more than the difference between AS and Ben Crane/William McGirt ranked 164/165th.

>

>

That’s my point. A lot of the rankings are so close together that it can be explained as “ a lucky “ day when either wins. Half a shot a round is really not explainable by skill. It’s more like rub of the fairway.

 

I’m not at all trying to get into the whole strokes gained argument. But I do take exception when people list 1st vs 30th on that list and act like that’s a huge gap to make some point about “ skill “. Adam Scott’s points on distance have merit. And you can’t call him less skilled based upon a small difference in ranking like that. His deficiency is putter and always has been. Truth is most are good in that category. It boils down to things like shot shape ( draw vs fade ) for a given course , and bunker avoidance etc. so of course AS has room to improve. But here’s the thing. So does DJ. And half stroke a round to me means that on any given day one may drive it better than the other. Lately it’s not DJ. He’s all over the planet.

 

[FairwaysToHeaven]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Johnny Biarritz" said:

> > > > > 600 is a bit high for a par 4...but not much too high. Probably 570 or so.

> > > >

> > > > These guys hit 5-irons 230. They hit fairway woods 280-290. Anything under 600 yards, unless the hole somehow forces a lay-up, is a par-4 for these guys.

> > >

> > > I ask again, what is your point? Why does it matter? Does the player with the fewest strokes not win every time? You covert a few more par 5s to 4s and a few 4s to 3s, guess what, the longest guys are still likely to win week in and week out. And rolling back the ball/equipment will only make it harder for the short knockers

> >

> > It just matters to be honest how equipment technology has changed the pro game and changed par.

>

> Again, how so? Saying it matters doesn't explain anything. My 5i can go 220 and I have some 280 3w's off the tee under my belt, I still don't hold a candle to the pros. Despite these equipment changes, the gap between the pros and ams has not changed, if anything it has grown even larger. **Everyone likes to blame the ball and clubs and fail to realize it's the players themselves that have changed. **

>

> Their preparation, conditioning, and focus is better than ever and all of the former black magic of what made up a good player can now be explained with data backed science. I really only think the one's upset with how the game has changed are those folks who's games have stagnated or regressed despite all of the technology at their hands, so it's easier to get mad at the pros and point fingers than accept the reality of their own game.

 

there are guys on the champion tour hitting as far or longer than they did when they were on the regular tour. guys are stronger and have trained for speed in todays game no doubt, but give any of the guys the same club and ball of 1992 and they won't hit it nearly as far or hit as many fairways.

[QMany]

> @jmck said:

> > @Soloman1 said:

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Came here to post that chart. It blows me away that people still insist it's fitness or "evolution" or some sort of world-wide population explosion rather than the equipment. Oversized titanium heads added 10-15 yards with the old balls. The new balls added another 10-15 on top of that. It's right there in the chart. If they kept those stats before 1980, that line would be flat all the way back to the introduction of the steel shaft.

>

> Modern drivers and balls absolutely take skill out of the game. With the old equipment you had to absolutely button a driver, so you swung within yourself because there was a massive penalty for missing a driver by an inch. That was how you kept the ball in play, by swinging at less than 100%. That's what separated someone like Norman from his peers. He could swing 100% and still button a driver, almost every time. Very very few people on tour could--take a look at someone like Nick Faldo hitting a driver in the 80s or early to mid 90s. Dude was like 6'2" and 200 lbs. solid and look at how gentle he goes at a driver. Now everyone--from Rory to Webb Simpson--swings 100% all the time and it doesn't matter if they miss by 1 or 2". There's no real penalty for it. If another Norman came along, he's got no advantage over his peers. The equipment doesn't separate an tour-average ball striker from a superlative one.

>

> On top of that, the penalty for missing with the old equipment grew worse the faster you swung. With the old equipment at a 90mph driver swing speed if you missed by 1" you could find the ball. At 120mph miss by an 1" and it's off the planet. It's counter-intuitive, but the old equipment actually reduced the gap between pros and ams.

>

> Likewise, if you don't want to roll back equipment, the solution is counter-intuitive: shorter courses, not longer courses: [https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/](https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/ "https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/")

>

> If you want to roll back equipment, the easiest solution is a minimum spin test for balls. They already test for maximum velocity, just add a minimum spin test. Say 3000 rpms with a 10* driver at 120mph with a 0* AoA. That'd be all you need to do and it wouldn't effect ams nearly as much as pros. It wouldn't roll things all the way back to a pre-titanium days, but it'd add some curve back to the game and make pros think twice before swinging 100% with a driver--i.e., it would add some of the strategy back, and reward not just strategy but skill as well.

>

> A driver shouldn't be easier to hit than a lob wedge, but right now miss a lob wedge by an inch or two and it's worse for your score than missing driver by an inch or two.

 

I don't think anyone is rationally arguing that the club and ball didn't change the game. But distance has still been creeping up since those two were implemented AND REGULATED. I do think that is because of other influences like fitness, launch monitors, swing mechanics, etc.

 

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.

 

 

[jjmurry]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @OutBackHack said:

> > > @jjmurry said:

> > > Would certainly help if they took all the water that they use to soak the greens and watered the fairways so these guys don't get 30 yards of roll.

> >

> > Comments like this are part of the problem...ask anyone who's played any type of tournament golf and the answer will always be that firm fairways are more difficult than soft. Think about it, if the ball stops where it lands and your goal is to land on the fairway, it's gonna end up on the fairway. Anyone that thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

> > Firm fairways combined with dog legs equal balls running into the rough if the perfect drive isn't hit.

>

> Absolutely agree. A wet course is easier as a whole.

 

Agree to disagree. The whole "strokes gained" stat seems to prove you guys wrong in that a shorter drive in the fairway < a longer drive in the rough for these guys. I said let the greens dry up and let the fairways (and rough for that matter) be wet, not a soaked course overall. I totally agree with your premise that firing into wet greens makes things easier, but players playing out of thicker rough and longer approaches from the fairway can potentially make the game marginally more difficult for these guys.

 

Full disclosure: I am not for bifurcating the equipment in that it would likely drive costs for the average consumer through the roof. Think about it, there would have to be two sets of R&D teams for these companies, one for "pros" and one for "regular Joe's". Pros don't pay for their clubs like you or I do, so what are they going to do? Pass the costs to the paying customers, simple as that. I'd rather let the courses take care of the problem in that you or I aren't playing them each day and it only has to be fixed one week of the year.

 

At the end of the day, I don't particularly care about the pro's finishing tournaments at -20, it makes me want to make myself better so that I can shoot scores like that.

[LICC]

> @QMany said:

> > @jmck said:

> > > @Soloman1 said:

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Came here to post that chart. It blows me away that people still insist it's fitness or "evolution" or some sort of world-wide population explosion rather than the equipment. Oversized titanium heads added 10-15 yards with the old balls. The new balls added another 10-15 on top of that. It's right there in the chart. If they kept those stats before 1980, that line would be flat all the way back to the introduction of the steel shaft.

> >

> > Modern drivers and balls absolutely take skill out of the game. With the old equipment you had to absolutely button a driver, so you swung within yourself because there was a massive penalty for missing a driver by an inch. That was how you kept the ball in play, by swinging at less than 100%. That's what separated someone like Norman from his peers. He could swing 100% and still button a driver, almost every time. Very very few people on tour could--take a look at someone like Nick Faldo hitting a driver in the 80s or early to mid 90s. Dude was like 6'2" and 200 lbs. solid and look at how gentle he goes at a driver. Now everyone--from Rory to Webb Simpson--swings 100% all the time and it doesn't matter if they miss by 1 or 2". There's no real penalty for it. If another Norman came along, he's got no advantage over his peers. The equipment doesn't separate an tour-average ball striker from a superlative one.

> >

> > On top of that, the penalty for missing with the old equipment grew worse the faster you swung. With the old equipment at a 90mph driver swing speed if you missed by 1" you could find the ball. At 120mph miss by an 1" and it's off the planet. It's counter-intuitive, but the old equipment actually reduced the gap between pros and ams.

> >

> > Likewise, if you don't want to roll back equipment, the solution is counter-intuitive: shorter courses, not longer courses: [https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/](https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/ "https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/")

> >

> > If you want to roll back equipment, the easiest solution is a minimum spin test for balls. They already test for maximum velocity, just add a minimum spin test. Say 3000 rpms with a 10* driver at 120mph with a 0* AoA. That'd be all you need to do and it wouldn't effect ams nearly as much as pros. It wouldn't roll things all the way back to a pre-titanium days, but it'd add some curve back to the game and make pros think twice before swinging 100% with a driver--i.e., it would add some of the strategy back, and reward not just strategy but skill as well.

> >

> > A driver shouldn't be easier to hit than a lob wedge, but right now miss a lob wedge by an inch or two and it's worse for your score than missing driver by an inch or two.

>

> I don't think anyone is rationally arguing that the club and ball didn't change the game. But distance has still been creeping up since those two were implemented AND REGULATED. I do think that is because of other influences like fitness, launch monitors, swing mechanics, etc.

>

> 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.

>

>

 

There still have been technological advancements even after the regulations. Bigger sweet spots on drivers to get longer drives on mis-hits, more changes to the ball. It's been reduced but especially in the 2000s technology kept improving. And the use of monitors and trackman to refine swings may not be equipment technology but those are still advancements based on technology.

[QMany]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @QMany said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @QMany said:

> > > > Adam Scott:

> > > > * 2018: 13th in Clubhead Speed (120.85), 44th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > > * 2019: 20th in Clubhead Speed (120.29), 33rd in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > >

> > > > Dustin Johnson:

> > > > * 2018: 10th in Clubhead Speed (121.38), 1st in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > > * 2019: T30 in Clubhead Speed (119.19), 5th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > >

> > > > MAYBE there is a little more skill involved than Adam Scott realizes.

> > >

> > > What’s the difference in the two strokes gained metrics ? I bet it’s less than a shot.

> > >

> > > I assume your suggesting that the skill level from 1st to 33rd is a huge gap in skill ?

> >

> > While yes, less than a shot difference, that is still a large variance.

> >

> > In 2019, DJ is gaining 0.376 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging 1.1 MPH slower). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT is more than the difference between AS and Kiradech Aphibarnrat who is ranked 117th.

> >

> > In 2018, DJ gained 0.619 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging only 0.53 MPH faster). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT was more than the difference between AS and Ben Crane/William McGirt ranked 164/165th.

> >

> >

> That’s my point. A lot of the rankings are so close together that it can be explained as “ a lucky “ day when either wins. Half a shot a round is really not explainable by skill. It’s more like rub of the fairway.

>

> I’m not at all trying to get into the whole strokes gained argument. But I do take exception when people list 1st vs 30th on that list and act like that’s a huge gap to make some point about “ skill “. Adam Scott’s points on distance have merit. And you can’t call him less skilled based upon a small difference in ranking like that. His deficiency is putter and always has been. Truth is most are good in that category. It boils down to things like shot shape ( draw vs fade ) for a given course , and bunker avoidance etc. so of course AS has room to improve. But here’s the thing. So does DJ. And half stroke a round to me means that on any given day one may drive it better than the other. Lately it’s not DJ. He’s all over the planet.

>

I guess we disagree, I do think the difference in 0.376 and 0.619 Strokes Gained is quite a gap. Like I said, that is the same difference between Adam Scott and Kiradech, Ben Crane, and William McGirt, who are relatively poor drivers of the golf ball. If anything, the ranking difference just minimizes the gap. You're talking 1.5-2.5 strokes over a tournament, off driver alone, despite AS swinging it faster on average.

 

[bscinstnct]

> @JD3 said:

> Who are your Corey pavin, Fred funk, Chris dimarco's of today? The era when the shortest hitter in the field could make it up in other ways and be a fixture on top of the money list is over.

 

 

Molinari, Kuch, Chez Reavie, Kevin Na, all won this year.

 

Also, I love Fred Funk but his best year end OWGR rank was 34th and even in his prime he was generally 50th or worse. Dimarco got to #10 and had a few years hovering between #10 and #20. And Corey did get to #5! His best OWGR run was 10,10,5, 11.

 

**Best year end OWGRs comparison of the players mentioned,

 

Pavin #5, Demarco #10, Funk #34

 

Molinari #7, Kuch #7, Kevin Na #25, Chez #63 (but #29 right now), **

 

 

[Divot2]

If Adam Scott was winning, I highly doubt he would be talking about driving distance.

[North Butte]

> @jmck said:

> > @Soloman1 said:

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Came here to post that chart. It blows me away that people still insist it's fitness or "evolution" or some sort of world-wide population explosion rather than the equipment. Oversized titanium heads added 10-15 yards with the old balls. The new balls added another 10-15 on top of that. It's right there in the chart. If they kept those stats before 1980, that line would be flat all the way back to the introduction of the steel shaft.

>

> Modern drivers and balls absolutely take skill out of the game. With the old equipment you had to absolutely button a driver, so you swung within yourself because there was a massive penalty for missing a driver by an inch. That was how you kept the ball in play, by swinging at less than 100%. That's what separated someone like Norman from his peers. He could swing 100% and still button a driver, almost every time. Very very few people on tour could--take a look at someone like Nick Faldo hitting a driver in the 80s or early to mid 90s. Dude was like 6'2" and 200 lbs. solid and look at how gentle he goes at a driver. Now everyone--from Rory to Webb Simpson--swings 100% all the time and it doesn't matter if they miss by 1 or 2". There's no real penalty for it. If another Norman came along, he's got no advantage over his peers. The equipment doesn't separate an tour-average ball striker from a superlative one.

>

> On top of that, the penalty for missing with the old equipment grew worse the faster you swung. With the old equipment at a 90mph driver swing speed if you missed by 1" you could find the ball. At 120mph miss by an 1" and it's off the planet. It's counter-intuitive, but the old equipment actually reduced the gap between pros and ams.

>

> Likewise, if you don't want to roll back equipment, the solution is counter-intuitive: shorter courses, not longer courses: [https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/](https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/ "https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/")

>

> If you want to roll back equipment, the easiest solution is a minimum spin test for balls. They already test for maximum velocity, just add a minimum spin test. Say 3000 rpms with a 10* driver at 120mph with a 0* AoA. That'd be all you need to do and it wouldn't effect ams nearly as much as pros. It wouldn't roll things all the way back to a pre-titanium days, but it'd add some curve back to the game and make pros think twice before swinging 100% with a driver--i.e., it would add some of the strategy back, and reward not just strategy but skill as well.

>

> A driver shouldn't be easier to hit than a lob wedge, but right now miss a lob wedge by an inch or two and it's worse for your score than missing driver by an inch or two.

 

Wait, you mean a wooden driver and a lumpy rubber-band ball sucked when someone swung hard at them? And that they were replaced with drivers and balls that don't suck when someone swings hard at them?

 

Go figure.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @"Johnny Biarritz" said:

> > > > > 600 is a bit high for a par 4...but not much too high. Probably 570 or so.

> > > >

> > > > These guys hit 5-irons 230. They hit fairway woods 280-290. Anything under 600 yards, unless the hole somehow forces a lay-up, is a par-4 for these guys.

> > >

> > > I ask again, what is your point? Why does it matter? Does the player with the fewest strokes not win every time? You covert a few more par 5s to 4s and a few 4s to 3s, guess what, the longest guys are still likely to win week in and week out. And rolling back the ball/equipment will only make it harder for the short knockers

> >

> > To use an analogy. Suppose we shorten all mlb parks to 250 ft. We’d see 25-30 homers a game. And highest score would still win. But at that point is ceases to be baseball. And is instead a home run derby.

> >

> > SOme of us see golf as ceasing to be golf soon and instead becoming something else.

>

> Have the lengthed the 100m dash? Did the record for the mile get too fast so we lengthened the mile? Guys jump higher-has the hoop in basketball been raised?

> Yes the game has ~~changed~~ evolved. All games do. Embrace it or be the old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

 

are guys jumping higher because of the shoes? or running faster because of the shorts?

wasn't long ago nike developed a full body suit for swimmers which actually made the swimmer faster than going shirtless. the swimming organizations quickly outlawed them. pga can do the same. i don't care that big stronger players are hitting it farther. but when it becomes equipment aided and is eliminating the course strategy it becomes a problem. i don't care about score relative to par. i care about a course designer putting bunkers at strategic points on the course and now the only way to bring those back into play is for the course to buy more land and build tees farther back.

[QMany]

> @JD3 said:

> Who are your Corey pavin, Fred funk, Chris dimarco's of today? The era when the shortest hitter in the field could make it up in other ways and be a fixture on top of the money list is over.

 

Zach Johnson won at Augusta and St. Andrews (more majors than those three combined) when he was ranked 169th and T148 in driving distance.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @"Johnny Biarritz" said:

> > > > > > > > 600 is a bit high for a par 4...but not much too high. Probably 570 or so.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > These guys hit 5-irons 230. They hit fairway woods 280-290. Anything under 600 yards, unless the hole somehow forces a lay-up, is a par-4 for these guys.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I ask again, what is your point? Why does it matter? Does the player with the fewest strokes not win every time? You covert a few more par 5s to 4s and a few 4s to 3s, guess what, the longest guys are still likely to win week in and week out. And rolling back the ball/equipment will only make it harder for the short knockers

> > > > >

> > > > > To use an analogy. Suppose we shorten all mlb parks to 250 ft. We’d see 25-30 homers a game. And highest score would still win. But at that point is ceases to be baseball. And is instead a home run derby.

> > > > >

> > > > > SOme of us see golf as ceasing to be golf soon and instead becoming something else.

> > > >

> > > > Have the lengthed the 100m dash? Did the record for the mile get too fast so we lengthened the mile? Guys jump higher-has the hoop in basketball been raised?

> > > > Yes the game has ~~changed~~ evolved. All games do. Embrace it or be the old guy yelling at kids to get off his lawn.

> > >

> > > Running faster doesn't change the strategy or essence of sprinting. Blasting the ball massively greater distances than before does.

> >

> > Like baseball? Bottom line is the pros do not score the way they do just because they are long. We have post after post claiming that they and many others on this board are as long as the pros. It still takes tons of skill to shoot 7 under day after day.

> >

> > https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/mlb-baseballs-old-timers-decry-state-of-the-modern-game/ar-AAG134s?li=BBnba9I

>

> So are you saying it’s mostly due to putting / shortgame skill ?

 

putting stats have improved somewhat because of improved greens. faster and smoother has improved putting. whats funny is the pga changed the grooves on wedges in attempt to lessen spin around the greens yet they refuse to touch the driver. its all about the money. equipment brands are in the drivers seat.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

> @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.

 

golfwrx just interviewed JT...

his stock 4 iron carry is 230, 7i 185, 57 is 112.

 

 

[gioguy21]

> @HoosierMizuno said:

> > @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.

>

> golfwrx just interviewed JT...

> his stock 4 iron carry is 230, 7i 185, 57 is 112.

>

>

 

those seem completely reasonable

[OutBackHack]

> @m> @jjmurry said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @OutBackHack said:

> > > > @jjmurry said:

> > > > Would certainly help if they took all the water that they use to soak the greens and watered the fairways so these guys don't get 30 yards of roll.

> > >

> > > Comments like this are part of the problem...ask anyone who's played any type of tournament golf and the answer will always be that firm fairways are more difficult than soft. Think about it, if the ball stops where it lands and your goal is to land on the fairway, it's gonna end up on the fairway. Anyone that thinks otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

> > > Firm fairways combined with dog legs equal balls running into the rough if the perfect drive isn't hit.

> >

> > Absolutely agree. A wet course is easier as a whole.

>

> Agree to disagree. The whole "strokes gained" stat seems to prove you guys wrong in that a shorter drive in the fairway < a longer drive in the rough for these guys. I said let the greens dry up and let the fairways (and rough for that matter) be wet, not a soaked course overall. I totally agree with **your premise that firing into wet greens makes things easier**, but players playing out of thicker rough and longer approaches from the fairway can potentially make the game marginally more difficult for these guys.

>

> Full disclosure: I am not for bifurcating the equipment in that it would likely drive costs for the average consumer through the roof. Think about it, there would have to be two sets of R&D teams for these companies, one for "pros" and one for "regular Joe's". Pros don't pay for their clubs like you or I do, so what are they going to do? Pass the costs to the paying customers, simple as that. I'd rather let the courses take care of the problem in that you or I aren't playing them each day and it only has to be fixed one week of the year.

>

> At the end of the day, I don't particularly care about the pro's finishing tournaments at -20, it makes me want to make myself better so that I can shoot scores like that.

 

Not to be argumentative, but my premise had nothing to do with greens. A course with firm fairways is harder to play because the fairway is harder to hit. No matter how far you hit it, playing from the fairway is easier than playing from the rough.

Your original point was that if fairways were softer the course would be easier and that just plain wrong.

[Shilgy]

> @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.

[JD3]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @JD3 said:

> > Who are your Corey pavin, Fred funk, Chris dimarco's of today? The era when the shortest hitter in the field could make it up in other ways and be a fixture on top of the money list is over.

>

>

> Molinari, Kuch, Chez Reavie, Kevin Na, all won this year.

>

> Also, I love Fred Funk but his best year end OWGR rank was 34th and even in his prime he was generally 50th or worse. Dimarco got to #10 and had a few years hovering between #10 and #20. And Corey did get to #5! His best OWGR run was 10,10,5, 11.

>

> **Best year end OWGRs comparison of the players mentioned,

>

> Pavin #5, Demarco #10, Funk #34

>

> Molinari #7, Kuch #7, Kevin Na #25, Chez #63 (but #29 right now), **

>

>

 

Molinari is the only one with a major and he only got his breakthru when he started hitting it farther!

[LICC]

> @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.

 

The point wasn't whether the players were long. The point was whether the players were athletic and fit.

If I had to guess, 90% of the distance gains are from equipment, 5% from modern technology like Trackman being used to maximize distance, 4% to better course maintenance, and 1%, maybe, to better focus on fitness.

[JD3]

> @jmck said:

> > @Soloman1 said:

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Came here to post that chart. It blows me away that people still insist it's fitness or "evolution" or some sort of world-wide population explosion rather than the equipment. Oversized titanium heads added 10-15 yards with the old balls. The new balls added another 10-15 on top of that. It's right there in the chart. If they kept those stats before 1980, that line would be flat all the way back to the introduction of the steel shaft.

>

> Modern drivers and balls absolutely take skill out of the game. With the old equipment you had to absolutely button a driver, so you swung within yourself because there was a massive penalty for missing a driver by an inch. That was how you kept the ball in play, by swinging at less than 100%. That's what separated someone like Norman from his peers. He could swing 100% and still button a driver, almost every time. Very very few people on tour could--take a look at someone like Nick Faldo hitting a driver in the 80s or early to mid 90s. Dude was like 6'2" and 200 lbs. solid and look at how gentle he goes at a driver. Now everyone--from Rory to Webb Simpson--swings 100% all the time and it doesn't matter if they miss by 1 or 2". There's no real penalty for it. If another Norman came along, he's got no advantage over his peers. The equipment doesn't separate an tour-average ball striker from a superlative one.

>

> On top of that, the penalty for missing with the old equipment grew worse the faster you swung. With the old equipment at a 90mph driver swing speed if you missed by 1" you could find the ball. At 120mph miss by an 1" and it's off the planet. It's counter-intuitive, but the old equipment actually reduced the gap between pros and ams.

>

> Likewise, if you don't want to roll back equipment, the solution is counter-intuitive: shorter courses, not longer courses: [https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/](https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/ "https://thefriedegg.com/combating-bomb-and-gouge-a-new-proposal/")

>

> If you want to roll back equipment, the easiest solution is a minimum spin test for balls. They already test for maximum velocity, just add a minimum spin test. Say 3000 rpms with a 10* driver at 120mph with a 0* AoA. That'd be all you need to do and it wouldn't effect ams nearly as much as pros. It wouldn't roll things all the way back to a pre-titanium days, but it'd add some curve back to the game and make pros think twice before swinging 100% with a driver--i.e., it would add some of the strategy back, and reward not just strategy but skill as well.

>

> A driver shouldn't be easier to hit than a lob wedge, but right now miss a lob wedge by an inch or two and it's worse for your score than missing driver by an inch or two.

 

Proposal in the link is ridiculous, no one's going to do that. If they really want to make courses more difficult they can start with making hazards, hazards again! Stop raking the by bunkers! What a joke players get gauranteed pretty much the same lie everytime. I remember years ago when their was serious talk of doing away with raking, Nick price came out and said "it's not fair because players will get different lies...some better than others". Yes you moron it's a freaking hazard it's supposed to be random in there. It's like saying hazards marked with red stakes aren't fair either because sometimes guys need a drop, other times they get a lie and stance they can play out of. I'd start with that first as placing an increased premium on accuracy both off the tee (fairway bunkers) and approach shots (greenside).

[FairwaysToHeaven]

take half the field in a long drive event and force them to use drivers and balls from 1995. would any of them win the event? why not?

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @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.

>

> The point wasn't whether the players were long. The point was whether the players were athletic and fit.

> If I had to guess, 90% of the distance gains are from equipment, 5% from modern technology like Trackman being used to maximize distance, 4% to better course maintenance, and 1%, maybe, to better focus on fitness.

 

You are missing much of the point-perhaps intentionally. I do not know how old you are, I am 62, and back in the day we were taught to hit the ball straight. Not long. There were long hitters but that was generally just their genetic "normal".

Today? Lok at the lesson tee at a top notch junior academy. They have them in every town-decent sized towns have more than one. And I am not referring to the IMG Leadbetter type at all. Just top notch instruction from a young age. Here is an example in Phoenix http://www.dancampbellgolf.com/

These kids are taught a great swing at an early age and are able to rip it because with a good swing there are fewer compensations and they can fly it. Look at the kids guys like George Gankas teaches.

You need to have something to blame then blame that. Yes, the equipment matters. But not 90%. These young players would swing fast with any club you put in their hands. Note they are swinging fast-not hard. Their is a difference. Their normal swing is fast.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > The point wasn't whether the players were long. The point was whether the players were athletic and fit.

> > If I had to guess, 90% of the distance gains are from equipment, 5% from modern technology like Trackman being used to maximize distance, 4% to better course maintenance, and 1%, maybe, to better focus on fitness.

>

> You are missing much of the point-perhaps intentionally. I do not know how old you are, I am 62, and back in the day we were taught to hit the ball straight. Not long. There were long hitters but that was generally just their genetic "normal".

> Today? Lok at the lesson tee at a top notch junior academy. They have them in every town-decent sized towns have more than one. And I am not referring to the IMG Leadbetter type at all. Just top notch instruction from a young age. Here is an example in Phoenix http://www.dancampbellgolf.com/

> These kids are taught a great swing at an early age and are able to rip it because with a good swing there are fewer compensations and they can fly it. Look at the kids guys like George Gankas teaches.

> You need to have something to blame then blame that. Yes, the equipment matters. But not 90%. These young players would swing fast with any club you put in their hands. Note they are swinging fast-not hard. Their is a difference. Their normal swing is fast.

 

They are swinging this way because of the equipment. The new drivers allow players to get away with swinging all out because a miss off center doesn't punish a player as much as it did with the prior drivers. Being able to swing harder because of the new equipment is still attributable to the equipment.

[cardoustie]

I think everyone's shorts are in a bind because more top guys are long

There have always been long hitters on tour .... but they generally weren't at the top of the food chain

Does it really matter if guys win with -20 vs -11 in the grand scheme of things?

I think where it hurts the best ball strikers (like Adam Scott) is that he doesn't get to showcase is long and mid irons very much on par 4's ... which in the old days would separate the men from the boys. A scrappy striker can still hit greens with wedges and short irons

Plus, hybrids REALLY helped out the guys with less than stellar technique

[Shilgy]

> @LICC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > The point wasn't whether the players were long. The point was whether the players were athletic and fit.

> > > If I had to guess, 90% of the distance gains are from equipment, 5% from modern technology like Trackman being used to maximize distance, 4% to better course maintenance, and 1%, maybe, to better focus on fitness.

> >

> > You are missing much of the point-perhaps intentionally. I do not know how old you are, I am 62, and back in the day we were taught to hit the ball straight. Not long. There were long hitters but that was generally just their genetic "normal".

> > Today? Lok at the lesson tee at a top notch junior academy. They have them in every town-decent sized towns have more than one. And I am not referring to the IMG Leadbetter type at all. Just top notch instruction from a young age. Here is an example in Phoenix http://www.dancampbellgolf.com/

> > These kids are taught a great swing at an early age and are able to rip it because with a good swing there are fewer compensations and they can fly it. Look at the kids guys like George Gankas teaches.

> > You need to have something to blame then blame that. Yes, the equipment matters. But not 90%. These young players would swing fast with any club you put in their hands. Note they are swinging fast-not hard. Their is a difference. Their normal swing is fast.

>

> They are swinging this way because of the equipment. The new drivers allow players to get away with swinging all out because a miss off center doesn't punish a player as much as it did with the prior drivers. Being able to swing harder because of the new equipment is still attributable to the equipment.

 

Flat out wrong. Did Johnny Miller hold back? go to 2:10 You are basing that on the idea that players have always said they are swinging at 90% for control. Do you have more of an issue hitting the hybrid dead center or the 460cc driver?

[KrazyTrain18]

> @Divot2 said:

> If Adam Scott was winning, I highly doubt he would be talking about driving distance.

 

These aren't new comments from Adam. He said something similar after winning back to back in 2016.

http://aussiegolfer.com.au/must-read-candid-qa-interview-with-adam-scott/

[Krt22]

> @QMany said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @QMany said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @QMany said:

> > > > > Adam Scott:

> > > > > * 2018: 13th in Clubhead Speed (120.85), 44th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > > > * 2019: 20th in Clubhead Speed (120.29), 33rd in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > > >

> > > > > Dustin Johnson:

> > > > > * 2018: 10th in Clubhead Speed (121.38), 1st in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > > > * 2019: T30 in Clubhead Speed (119.19), 5th in Strokes Gained OTT.

> > > > >

> > > > > MAYBE there is a little more skill involved than Adam Scott realizes.

> > > >

> > > > What’s the difference in the two strokes gained metrics ? I bet it’s less than a shot.

> > > >

> > > > I assume your suggesting that the skill level from 1st to 33rd is a huge gap in skill ?

> > >

> > > While yes, less than a shot difference, that is still a large variance.

> > >

> > > In 2019, DJ is gaining 0.376 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging 1.1 MPH slower). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT is more than the difference between AS and Kiradech Aphibarnrat who is ranked 117th.

> > >

> > > In 2018, DJ gained 0.619 strokes on AS per round (despite swinging only 0.53 MPH faster). That difference in Strokes Gained OTT was more than the difference between AS and Ben Crane/William McGirt ranked 164/165th.

> > >

> > >

> > That’s my point. A lot of the rankings are so close together that it can be explained as “ a lucky “ day when either wins. Half a shot a round is really not explainable by skill. It’s more like rub of the fairway.

> >

> > I’m not at all trying to get into the whole strokes gained argument. But I do take exception when people list 1st vs 30th on that list and act like that’s a huge gap to make some point about “ skill “. Adam Scott’s points on distance have merit. And you can’t call him less skilled based upon a small difference in ranking like that. His deficiency is putter and always has been. Truth is most are good in that category. It boils down to things like shot shape ( draw vs fade ) for a given course , and bunker avoidance etc. so of course AS has room to improve. But here’s the thing. So does DJ. And half stroke a round to me means that on any given day one may drive it better than the other. Lately it’s not DJ. He’s all over the planet.

> >

> I guess we disagree, I do think the difference in 0.376 and 0.619 Strokes Gained is quite a gap. Like I said, that is the same difference between Adam Scott and Kiradech, Ben Crane, and William McGirt, who are relatively poor drivers of the golf ball. If anything, the ranking difference just minimizes the gap. You're talking 1.5-2.5 strokes over a tournament, off driver alone, despite AS swinging it faster on average.

>

Yeah lots of folks like to focus on length alone, lots of long guys are back markers and the KF guys are statistically longer accross the board. DJ, Rory, BK, etc are incredibly long and straight which allows them to attack the course diffently than most.

 

[jmck]

> @KrazyTrain18 said:

> > @Divot2 said:

> > If Adam Scott was winning, I highly doubt he would be talking about driving distance.

>

> These aren't new comments from Adam. He said something similar after winning back to back in 2016.

> http://aussiegolfer.com.au/must-read-candid-qa-interview-with-adam-scott/

 

Yep, and Jack and Tiger have both said similar things as well. Perhaps they've won enough that their opinion on this will get a little more respect from the other guy? Probably not, but one can hope.

[twidener]

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.