Power on the PGA Tour......

[mahonie]

...Masters 1968...Roberto de Vicenza...iirc.

[bladehunter]

Lol. And I sensed a certain amount of humor or sarcasm in that request. Which I get. But at the same time. I’m not sure that being the OP affords any ownership of a thread. Definitely not censorship powers.

[oikos1]

Actually, he was tied for lowest score.

"Less than 30 minutes after Goalby had finished, the verdict came back in a statement from Hord Hardin, the president of the U.S. Golf Association and chairman of the Masters rules committee:

"Under the rules of golf, he (De Vicenzo) will be charged with a 66, which does not leave him in a tie with Bob Goalby, who is 11 under par. He is second, 10 under par."

Nice try though.

http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/history/1968-de-vicenzo-signs-wrong-score-goalby-wins-masters

[LICC]

Like we’ve said, if you think wedges and chip shots for every non-par 3 GIR and -30 winning scores would still be interesting, then your view could have some merit.

[mahonie]

Quite correct. The old brain cells aren’t what they once were!

[smashdn]

You can't make them hard enough without making them "unfair" (and I really hate to use that word in relation to anything golf). Even in the US Opens that got away from the USGA it was the result of the weather's impact that pushed them over the edge. Even on an "unfair" set up, without weather pros shoot under par.

 

Rory brought up not too long ago that he didn't care for how the EPGA Tour was setting up courses as it was taking stupid low numbers to be even in the top 20. I sort of read between the lines with him that having to go that low, where par on a hole is at times not a good score, is not fun golf to play.

[Shilgy]

Exactly my point. These are the best players in the world and yet for some reason many seem to believe that the courses are too easy because they shoot under par.

 

As for those that , apparently, misread my assertion of #6 to #100 being A negligible difference ......you must have missed the “any given week” part of the sentence. Yes, Rory is better(of corse he is not in the 6-100 group either so more lack of reading skills) but even there the higher ranked player does not score better every week.

[LICC]

Do you think the difference in playing ability between Tiger Woods and Joel Dahmen is "negligible"?

[bigred90gt]

And that statement has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing.

[smashdn]

In one round it may be. In one tournament it might even could be. Across a month, probably not. Across a season, certainly not. Across a career, no chance.

 

The data normalizes over time and trends develop.

 

This is where some folks (not in this thread) get lost in the Strokes Gained conversations that pop up (which btw we are probably due one of those threads). One data point is not the same thing as a statistic.

Driving distance is one such measurable statistic that when evaluated against winning it turns out to be one of, if not the, chief indicator or a player's ability to win and succeed on the PGA Tour across a season.

[LICC]

I'll try to connect the dots for you. Par is based on a scratch golfer and assumed 250 yard drives. Due to the substantially greater distance hit by PGA Tour pros, during Tour events certain holes have a different par than they otherwise would if holding strictly to the 250 yard drive assumption.

[bladehunter]

This is exactly been my point and experiences. When you have to go -16 under par on a county Am to Compete for 3 ( yes 3 ) days then the setup and the equipment makes it too easy. And not a fun game to play. And this was on a 7200 yard course . This is a normal type think in the Am world now. And looking back on scores from 20 years ago , I can’t find a county Am here at even -10 under par.

[bladehunter]

Ugh. Let’s not cross streams and bring up the sorcery that is strokes gained. ??

[bigred90gt]

I’ll say it again, though I’m a bit disappointed that I should have to. Your statement had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. The conversation was about how the USGA rated courses based on a scratch golfer and a drive of 250 yards. It has nothing, never had anything, and never will have anything to do with professionals or how far they hit the ball. the only mention was how he could understand the scores they shoot and would be disappointed if they didn’t. I don’t disagree, considering the average tour pro is what, 6-7 strokes better than scratch if they actually carried a handicap?

 

clear enough yet?

[ThinkingPlus]

Aww, come on BH, probability and statistics is fun! LOL.

[LICC]

I would go back and re-read the posts to you in which @mahonie was relating how the USGA par ratings related to the scores on the Tour, but you just seem to be missing the connection anyway. You can go back and re-read them yourself and then maybe you will see how the conversation was about Tour scores and how par relates.

[Titleist99]

It's called "The Modern Game" .... It doesn't matter what Par (is) ...everybody plays the same course and the lowest score wins.

We've graduated from golf of twenty years ago.....Pro Golf is Entertainment on television, it is a different game than the one played on links across America every day.

You have to be able to bomb it out there but the bomber don't always win''''I'll take the strategist any day. You still have to put the ball in the right places.

 

I know that you're talking about high level Ams but the above mentioned is the trend...IMO

[bladehunter]

Right up until it tells me to do something that totally defiles my feels. Lol. And I spend a month figuring out to go back.

[mahonie]

To justify my point I did a bit of research and a few pros do still carry handicaps ranging from Bubba at +7.7 to Baddeley at +4.2.

[bladehunter]

@Titleist99 for some reason can’t quote.

Anywya. I agree. It is the trend. No doubt. Which is exactly why I’d love to see the change back to the game I prefer. No reason why current trend has to be excepted as “ progress “. Loads of examples where toodays s norms are masked as progressive and are in reality just cavities in the tooth of the proper well established way.

[mahonie]

I’ll never trust SG until someone can justify why the first cut of rough counts as fairway.

[smashdn]

Define "strategist pro golfer" please. I can envision the "bomber" pretty easily but give me some names for the strategist player.

[bladehunter]

Current Tiger 2.0 is one. And I know that will meet with gaffes and hisses . But he is . He lays back more than any player of his length

 

To me to be a strategist you must posses speed The guy hitting driver all over because he’s too short for 3 wood isn’t a strategist .

 

 

[Titleist99]

Tiger Woods is the most obvious I've seen him win a major without using driver...A lot of times he'll lay back and play to the strength of his irons.

Justin Thomas is another even though he has tremendous power he mainly thinks his way around a golf course ....the mental game is a big part of golf...IMO

[ThinkingPlus]

It mostly is for a male tour player or better male ams. Speed + strength nullifies light rough unless it is that perfect dry, wispy stuff that generates semi-random flyers. If you watch women pros or top women ams in rough it becomes much more of a hack fest. Not enough speed and/or strength. The conclusions drawn from pro women's statistical data (if it existed) would be more inline with old school golf strategy (my speculation).

[smashdn]

I can see Tiger now. I could see Tiger 1.0 at times as well. But is Tiger capable of playing that way because of his length versus a player that must play that way because of their lack of length?

[bigred90gt]

So, you think pros just show up on every tee box and whale away without care of where the ball is going? You don’t think they map the course, intended targets, bailout areas, best angles, etc during practice rounds then try to play to that strategy to shoot the lowest score they can? I assume you have never been to a professional tournament and stood next to a player prepping for a shot discussing the strategy with their caddie?

 

I sincerely hope you know better than that.

[smashdn]

You read an awful lot into a simple question. You got very defensive, very quickly.

 

I can't even fully understand his stance until I understand who or what he is defining with the term. I might even agree with him on this.

[gvogel]

i believe that titty99 used old tiger as an example of "strategist." used to be a straighter than most - bomber, now an experienced strategist.

if memory serves me correctly, one could have described harry vardon using the same terms.

 

there is a point there, but it is not fully developed. at least, not without two hands.

[bigred90gt]

I’m not being defensive, I wasn’t being attacked. The question wasn’t even directed at me.

 

I still would like to know how anyone thinks any professional golfer today that plays the game does so willy-nilly without strategy. I personally don’t think there is one, and I don’t think anyone would be successful playing at that level without strategy.