Power on the PGA Tour......

[oikos1]

Every pro golfer is a strategist. Not even debatable. And more than likely, the golfer that wins for the week is the one who had the best strategy for the tools and skills they brought for the week.

 

[mahonie]

I will say that Radar Riley did a piece on Justin Thomas at some Tour event last season where the lateral distance between his drives at the same hole on 2 consecutive days was something like 190 yards...pull-hook vs push-slice...he made par both days as he was nowhere near any trouble either day.

[mahonie]

But it totally skews the stats that say the pros are long and straight...it would be interesting to see how many fairways are actually hit. Why not record fairways hit? Is that an irrelevant stat with the Modern Game?

[LICC]

Your dig at the end about hoping @smashdn knows better than that seemed defensive.
There appears to be much more of a tendency in the modern game for the longer hitters to decide much more frequently than in prior years to just take a line and hit it as close to the green as possible and not worry about fairway placement or even if they are in the rough. If someone is asking about certain players who take that approach more often than other players who more often play to shorter distances and toward certain sides of the fairway, I think that is a valid question.

[Bubbtubbs]

Regulation and prevention of distance escalating is one thing, but I just can't get behind the idea of rolling back anything. Progress is inevitable.

Won't ride horse and carriage, won't abstain from internet use, won't stand in line at the bank or a store when I can do it from my couch without ever speaking to a single human soul... I just don't see how it works. Even if it's only for tour pros, I'm not ok with playing a different game than they are (from an equipment standpoint).

I'd sooner see professional golf move to a digital venue where they can alter it however they see fit from event to event than have a rollback. Live golf is awful anyways - who wants to sit and listen to dinosaurs talk about a shot for 6 or 7 hours and waste time when I can watch the edited version of an entire day's Major coverage in less than 2?

[oikos1]

Both professional players would still be employing a strategy. The difference is some of you just don't like the way the strategy is used by one of the players.

[Titleist99]

The PGATOUR do keep that stat....Brendon Todd 285 off the tee....278 all drives.

[Titleist99]

Every Touring pro has a basic strategy but the best is laser focused. My best example is Tiger Woods with the lead on Sunday....He will plod along and let his chasers

self explode while cruising to the finish line....classic TW strategy.

Tiger use to drive off line but bomb and gouge was never his strategy. IMO.....Now Phil, that's a different story....

[ThinkingPlus]

Fairway hit percentage is still a statistic kept on the major tours. However, it rarely can be correlated to success. Strokes Gained: Driving is a far better statistic because it more completely isolates the contribution of driving the ball to lower scores. The strokes gained approach gives credit to shots that end up in the first cut where it would be a missed fairway receiving no credit using %Fairways Hit. Think about how much better it is to be in the left 1st cut vs right edge of a fairway to a pin tucked right behind a bunker.

[Titleist99]

Another strategist.....IMO....is  Brian Gay, while not a prolific winner on  the PGATOUR he know how to remain competitive by playing to his strengths. He's a short knocker but he thinks his way around a golf course, and that's his best asset. He'll easily play on tour 'til the age of 50, then go rule the Champions tour.

[smashdn]

So then to your point, if they are all strategists, why would certain ones of them carry the description "strategist pro golfer?"

Certainly I have my idea as to who that would describe but was giving T99 a chance to clarify before I opened my keyboard.

I thought he meant a golfer who elected to lay back and use angles and shot shape to position his ball advantageously. That is a subset of pro golfers I would think, not all of them. For some that style of play is necessitated by a lack of length off the tee. For others I am sure it is afforded them due to length of the tee. For others still I bet they either do or don't like playing that style or maybe they just prefer to play from the fairway as risk hitting it in the rough.

I do think there are group of players still who the default is driver unless there is a very, very compelling reason to not hit it. I would put Bruce, JT, Rory, Champ and a few others in that camp. Thay are the bombers mentioned in my mind. That isn't a slight at all either. They have the ability and it takes a real good reason not to let the big dog eat. That doesn't mean they aren't employing strategy. That means they don't have to worry as much with angles and going five yards in the rough because of how far they hit it.

A Zack Johnson doesn't have the luxury to not be a strategist but it is one due to a lack of driving distance. Tiger is a strategist because he had length and could afford to give some up to put himself in what he thought was a better position or angle or reduce risk of going offline with driver. Tigre is on record as saying he intentionally laid back at times so he had the opportunity to hit his approach first and put pressure on a guy. Maybe hyperbole a bit but he said it.

 

PGA Championship at Bethpage Black, Number One. Was there really any other play going through the bomber's I mentioned minds other than hit a long controlled fade over the trees? Didn't seem so. But there were others still that laid back to around 120 yards or so to hit towards the visible and straighter part of the fairway and to take going too long out of play. They played for position with higher regard for the rough. The others played for distance and position with far less regard for the rough as they were only going to have 50-60 yards left.

[mahonie]

Why not just make the fairways wider and make driving the ball even less of a skill than it is now? Don’t bother with first cut just make the fairway reach the proper rough? Or make the first cut proper rough and challenge the pros to actually hit the fairway and play shots that will allow them to score well? Not just whack away knowing that you will have a shot into the green.

My beef is not with distance per se but with the modern game being a boring yawn fest. By all means keep the distance, but make the game half interesting at least...I want to see players hitting birdies but not necessarily hitting wedges stiff into every green, or 2 putting every par 5.

[Titleist99]

The PGATOUR thinks bomb and gouge is exciting and interesting...……….you just don't agree with it.

[Titleist99]

Wow!....You stole my thunder with Zack Johnson. This player can't compete with the driver but he is the best wedge players of our generation (IMO) and he plays to that strength

on all the par 5's and he is a great strategized vs a power player.....another one of my favorite players. Don't get me started on Jim Furyk Mr. 58

and Mr.59 yet he's a short knocker. You can't accomplish that without being a great strategist.....IMO.

[oikos1]

That is exactly what most of the "anti roll it back" crowd has been suggesting.

[Titleist99]

Here's a perfect example of a bomb and gouger and a strategist.....A bomber drives it out there as far he can and go find it

regardless of the rough or the downhill lie. the strategist lays back 15 yards and hit to the correct side of the fairway and has a

level lie and is in great position for the pin placement. Now, who's closer to the hole and score the lowest score is a matter of interpretation and debate...

I'll take Tiger with a nine iron than another pro with a wedge...IMO

[ThinkingPlus]

What you are illustrating is essentially a design problem and maybe course setup problem. I agree that distance per se is not the "issue". If folks want golf to be more of a fairways and greens game then missing a fairway must have some kind of penalty associated with it. I don't personally like extremely long rough or water as the answer. I do like pot bunkers sprinkled at strategic locations in the expected driving areas. I like fast and firm turf. I like strategic trees trimmed up enough to allow recoveries. I like cross creeks or bunkers fronting greens on par 5s. I like hedges, gorse, just penal junk for grossly wayward shots. I think grass bunkers should be used more around greens. Penal features need to punish sloppy shots, but allow some type of recovery in many cases. I would love to see a shallow creek in front of a barely reachable par 5 where the balls would end up only partly submerged on otherwise playable ground. Entice the pros to try that recovery! It is all about introducing doubt into the player's mind or reduce control over a shot. That is the designer's challenge which few seem to embrace these days.

[mahonie]

Exactly that! What you are describing is an Open links layout which typically cover all of those aspects you listed and which for me are the most fun tournaments to watch. Throw in the variability of the weather and you really put some doubt into player’s minds. Having said that there is often the chance to pull off the glory shot to rescue the situation and that is when the great players get to show their skills and the game is worth watching. Modern course design is vanilla in comparison and that is where part of the problem lies.

[ThinkingPlus]

Sand belt courses in Australia as well. There are some courses in the US that fit the same design ideas without being overtly linksy. The PGA tour only plays a few places that pushes the pros buttons much. The Honda tournament at PGA National usually ruffles their tail feathers a bit with wind and water, for example.

[Titleist99]

Well Sir, If you read most post on this thread they would rather hold the manufacturers accountable for these guys bringing golf courses to their

knees and letting the designers and setup crew off scott free,,,,,

[ThinkingPlus]

It's Ma'am and I find that most folks tend to favor simple solutions to complex problems. Simple solutions to complex problems rarely work and usually result in undesirable unintended consequences.

[bladehunter]

Lol ?can’t you tell who the obvious smart one of this group is. Hint. She doesn’t get into the windmill tilting contest that we are all stupid enough to bite on.

 

Said as a complete compliment, I especially like that ma’am is still considered appropriate in Texas as it is here. I’ve said it to every lady I’ve met since having it drilled into my head at a young age . And around 6 months ago I had a 20 something year old shall we say “ person from the north “ brow beat me for the term. I responded “ yes ma’am , Im sorry ma’am “ as meekly as I could. lol

[Titleist99]

Please accept my apology Ma'am....No disrespect, I agree with your comments......

[bscinstnct]

nicely said, ThinkinP

 

[ThinkingPlus]

No problem. I wasn't offended. It is actually hard to offend me. I can get POed, but I try to keep it civil. ;-)

[Titleist99]

Tyler Duncan 5'8" 150#, avg.290 off the tee. 82% Driving accuracy. You don't have to be a bomber to win on the PGATOUR. This was the driving average ten years ago.

[Doyouevenblade]

Harbourside isn't exactly the longest course on the rotation.

 

I don't know the course well enough to engage in the architecture of it, but I know it's not long.

[LICC]

It’s over 7000 yards. Winner averaged over 290 and @Titleist99 somehow doesn’t realize that is contrary to his crazy opinion that 6500 yard courses can be challenging and interesting enough for Tour events

[smashdn]

 

A much shorter shot from the rough has a statistically better outcome (proximity to the hole) than does a farther away shot from the fairway. You can set up a course differently all you want but you are still limited to an extent in what you can do and what you should do before it becomes goofy golf. You can grow the rough to the point it is so penal that everybody has an iron in their hands off the tee. But now those aren't strategic choices as there really is no choice to be made. The reward is not commensurate with the potential reward.

You create strategic reasons to be in certain places in the fairway not only by having features in the landing zone but by having features of the green that dictate that.

But at the end of the day this is a change, modification made to one course that will have the desired effect for one week at a great cost an inconvenience for many weeks. And the next tour stop may need the exact same treatment.

It is just so much easier to change the equipment (in some manner) as that change goes from course to course and is predictable in some ways I would think. The ball manufacturers for instance have the data and the time period where we could lay the performance of the ball right over the top of the performance on tour and know pretty darn well what to expect. It doesn't seem like all that much of a guessing game.

 

But they won't and that is fine. I just think it is silly to go adding length and tearing up courses to get to the end that a different, simpler means would accomplish.

[ThinkingPlus]

I have read Broadies work. I have a good understanding of the statistics and the caveats associated with them. I am also not an advocate of super deep penal rough. However, without some penalty for missing a fairway, fast and firm conditions just make a course play easier. Consequently, nerfing the golf ball will not render the bomb and gouge strategy non-optimal just like the groove rule had no effect. The only way to really impact scoring is to limit control of the golf ball. Until the tour plays courses with design features that reduces a player's control over the ball or where environment limits control, nothing is going to change.