Is Legacy the Problem with Golf?

[oikos1]

Ok, I see you're on another path. I understand the perspective of wanting to reduce clubs (although I don't necessarily agree with it). Golfers used to carry twenty or more clubs, so not sure why you want it to be 9-10. Fourteen seems perfectly acceptable as a rule, for if you look in many "weekend" bags you'll likely count more than fourteen clubs which implies golfers still want more clubs in their bag, not less.

I do not follow how a lob wedge is a cop out. Especially since many players have a very difficult time mastering the intricacies of the lob wedge. It's not just a point and shoot club, as attested to by the many threads here on WRX related to the woes of the lob wedge. Following your premise, I suppose a sand wedge could be argued as a cop out as well, all the way down to reducing it to a golfer only gets one club to perform all shots. Are you suggesting there should also be a limit to loft?

[Nard_S]

The long iron approach shot for is dead for the most part. Couple years ago, watched early rounds of major where players were forced to use #4i on an approach. Real surprising how awful they performed with them. Not sure PGA guys even devote a lot of practice to using them. Why should they?

-22 win with balata, persimmon & steel is far more respectable than it being done with big Ti & modern ball. It just is. The added axial side spin and wind hazards involved with old gear forced PGA players to NOT hit the ball straight. The fade & draw was a percentage shot to control what happened in the air & ground, now for most part it's a percentage shot on how it kicks on the green. The irony is that on the whole, modern golfer is probably better skilled but we only value his 350 yard bomb now.

Tiger was built off "legacy". He is very much an old school player. Modern tour player is more John Daly in approach to game and to me that's where it went all wrong. Pro golf is about command of spin, Tiger is a master class in that. DeChambeau is John Daly with a physics degree.

 

 

 

[dropkicked]

I recall an episode on GC that spoke on the young guns coming onto tour and how they were excited to be in the "Tiger" lottery again after his comeback... meaning they all now had a chance to play with the legend himself at a tour even if they played well enough.. Hovland and Morikawa both touched on this when asked as did some younger players who had already been on tour for a few years ( A few canadians as well, IIRC)

So......

[Pepperturbo]

@marmaduk - You've drawn a conclusion of what you believe to be a position, based on your perception and or bias, yet it may not be that way at all; you just believe it. The good ole days may include, but not be dominated by, negative recollection of events, nor does it have to be glass half empty or half full, or equal representation of two extremes to exist.
To play the same game one does not have to see it exactly the same, just similarly. Recently, I played with a 16 handi buddy that hates golf obstacles while I enjoy those obstacles; he shot his score and I carded mine, twenty one stroke difference, if I recall.
You say "Legacy is the same reason someone can not find enjoyment in a tournament where the wining score is -21 and not -4. Legacy is believing in Par and not understanding Par is irrelevant." You mistakenly assume, Par is still the base line for Pros which your statement totally ignores. Legacy has no bearing on why I don't like -21; the course is setup to make it easy for tour players to impress sponsors (these guys are good, cra*.) When a 2-5 index like me can benefit from the same conditions to card my normal scores, that to my reasoning suggests it's too easy for the professionals.
Some of us, maybe even older than you, that appreciate legacy also know how to play the game using old style 620 MB irons with weaker lofts and ProV1 ball, like the pros. I assure you, though, I am not playing the same game as the pros or you. And I've played with a number of pros."Its a false narrative where you think things should be “the way they used to be” when in reality that “time” never existed." Again, that conclusion is guided by your bias, not facts tied to recollection of others or myself. Everyone's perception or recollection of old events are bound to be different based on life-influences and experiences'. I won't go into the population segment with Hyperthymesia. How things were back then were real. How they are portrayed today, depends on each persons mental filing system and quotient.
@freowho - Lob Wedges are cope outs???? Does that imply you want everyone to approach the game similarly to you? I can't imagine wishing others tackled golf the way I do, lives very so much.
Yesterday, challenging course, big-kid tees, this old-guy finished with a stinky 76, 3 birdies, brain-far* missed putts on 4 holes. Dang I love this OLD game. My GIR count stunk too so used 58* LW 1, 52* SW 4, 48* PW 6 times - each resulted in saving Par and 1 hole out birdie. Dang the 620MB PW really sticks the ball.
Have a good day, people.

[marmaduk]

I’m trying to follow along because I appreciate that you took the time to articulate your argument instead of just throw in “your two cents”

Is what you’re saying that since everyone’s life experience is unique then no one’s opinion is correct? sort of akin to suffering is an illusion?

I agree that par is no longer a pro’s baseline though I’m not sure these courses are intentionally set up to make it easier for pros and thus make sponsors more money. I believe the pros are out playing the course and governing bodies who set them up. On top of that, unless you are a pro, you definitely are not playing the same courses as they are played on tournament tv and therefore it has no bearing on you as a 5cap being able to play well.

Hyperthymesia is just vivid recollection. Humans are still subject to influence from the outside world. The map is not the landscape.

[mahonie]

A company I used to work for had a golf day for clients at Wentworth on the Monday after the PGA Championship every year for quite a few years. 3 years running my boss (8 handicap) beat his handicap playing the exact same course as the pros. Biggest gain was that the greens were watered to the point where they were receptive and still so pure, even after the Els renovations, that he didn’t feel like he could miss a putt from inside 10 feet. Oh and he didn’t get a scrubby lie anywhere on the course.

[marmaduk]

There are still so many factors that can contribute. As you said the greens were not running as fast and there were very few poor lies due to Immaculate conditioning of the course. Were you playing it from PGA yardage of 7,800? Does your boss sandbag or maybe a foot wedge or “free” drop? Obviously no crowd following you around to add pressure nor the purse that comes with it. Maybe he was just in the zone because it was his one chance every year to prove his fortitude? Who knows but it’s still not the same. But, this takes us off topic of how I believe legacy is ruining the game of golf.

[mahonie]

Watch this clip of a bit of golf ‘legacy’ (apologies for the poor video quality in advance).

How is this ruining the game? Questionable jumpers?

Demonstration of skill in controlling the trajectory, curvature and distance of a golf ball with a straight-faced 2-iron is the sort of ‘legacy’ thing that got me into the game. Watching Morikara and JT hitting every drive to leave 108 yards into the green on nearly every shot is boring...that is the problem with modern golf.

[Sean2]

I am 65 and enjoy watching the game evolve. It’s not unlike other sports that also evolve. I am 6’5”, played basketball and was a center. Today I would be a point guard, lol. I don’t want to see any kind of roll back, but I would like to see golf courses evolve at the professional level, for example, more penal rough so if you miss a fairway it’s not simply an easy shot out of the rough.

[marmaduk]

That sweater is amazing. But nowadays we keep ugly sweaters for Christmas parties. Maybe like the ugly sweater 1irons from the fairways are going extinct?

My original post is implying, although maybe I should have blatantly said it, that legacy is killing the game because people like you are wishing Faldo’s 1iron from a fairway after a great drive will come back. It simply won’t. I’m sorry to tell you but those days are gone along with ugly jumpers.

I think the nonstop bemoaning and lamenting for the past is killing the game. It won’t change back to the way it was. Even if (and it won’t happen imo) the ball is rolled back these guys will still find a way through equipment technology and training science to get strong enough to bomb it over hazards.

The greatest thing about this evolution of the game is that we, as amateurs, don’t play bomb and gouge. We can still hit 1irons from fairways or use hickory when the mood strikes. You may have lost what you think is proper golf from your viewing experience but you can still experience it in person when you’re out on a sunny day wearing a fugly jumper.

[mahonie]

If legacy is killing the game why is the average age of Sky golf’s viewers’ 57 and Under 25s make up less than 5% of the audience? The modern game does not get young players interested in the game...it’s as boring to them as it is to me. Kids don’t want to be the next Brooks Cupcake (voted the most boring sportsman in the USA iirc) or JT or Rickie.

Add in the cost of buying a sleeve of Pro V1s, TaylorMade’s latest and greatest driver (this week) and a set of Vokey wedges and you’ve lost them forever.

The PGA Tour is killing the game’s legacy - that is the real problem.

[rapeck]

New school, hit bombs and carry on golf is here get used to it

[freowho]

@oikos1 @Pepperturbo
My thoughts on the lob wedge are in line with my thoughts on the spirit of the game. Maybe I'm just a golf snob.
I'm always advocating that courses should be more playable but that's not the same as making them easy.
My overarching philosophy is that golf should still primarily be a game of strategy and the skill to position and flight the ball. Many modern golfers think their membership or green fee entitles them to be able to hit the ball next to the pin from wherever they are. The lob wedge makes it easier for someone who has put themselves out of position.
At what loft do you put a cap? Why not just play with one club? I often do. My friends and I have more fun playing 3 club matches then with 14 clubs. My go to is 3w, 7i and sw. I putt with the 3w.
This is always going to be subjective. What height should the hoop be in basketball?
I wouldn't put a cap on the loft but limit the clubs to 9 or 10 for formal competition because it introduces three quarter and half shots. If you watch that 14 club challenge on the European Tour most of them are horrible if they have to do anything other than a full shot. Club golf is the same. Take the rangefinder out, that distance equals that club, hit as hard as I can!
Modern maintenance also makes it easier for the golfer who is out of position. Fairways and greens aren't dry enough and rough is too manicured. You end up with this perfect plush pile carpet where people can just scoop the ball in the air! Not a lot of skill or technique required to do that.
I'd love to see a big tournament with a limited set. The European Tour have shown they are much more willing to try something different. My money would be on Tiger.

[oikos1]

Hmmm, you've given quite a bit to chew on, and I do appreciate the conversation. I'll choose the first comment you made "The lob wedge makes it easier for someone who has put themselves out of position".

I would say it may make it easier for someone who knows how to use a lob wedge. That means someone who has put in the time and effort to master a skill. Odd that it appears you would not value such a skill. On the surface, that would seem to comport with the "spirit" or "legacy" of the game. Conversely, if players were only allowed to use, say a 9 iron, certainly some would become such masters of the club you or someone else would than propose disdain once again, thereby reducing the skill to yet another acceptable club of lesser loft. At what point do you value the skill of the player over the loft of the club?

[freowho]

I feel like I've hit a nerve of a lob wedge devotee. But we're still not on the same page. You assume the lob wedge is a skill to be mastered. I mostly find the lob wedge is just adding loft to a poor action. Being able to hit a lob shot with a sand wedge or pitching wedge isn't just a trick shot. It's understanding loft, bounce, spin and flight. I use the same theory for full shots. If I'm in between clubs I'll open the face of the club and my stance a fraction to take a few metres off. I use the same theory for long bunker shots. Take a 9 iron and open the face and stance which gives you the loft but not the spin of a sand wedge so you can run the ball up to a back tier.

I don't use a lob wedge but have a couple of sand wedges with different bounces and grinds that I'll swap in and out depending on the course.

 

[cxx]

Most people can't remember when lob wedges were not a part of the game.

[Nard_S]

Come April, I'm always amazed that Augusta was designed by a guy with hickory in his hand. Sure it's been augmented a bit with tee boxes and such but the standard set there is quite extraordinary.

Tiger won the Masters last year because on the 12th hole he played "legacy" while the others did not. That's great golf, Bryson & protein shakes are not and never will be.

 

[JohnnyCashForever]

Or shot tracer on TV. Or hybrids. Or soft spikes/spikeless shoes. Or range finders/GPS devices. Or metal woods. Or golf carts. Or sand wedges. Or wooden tees. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis

[Pepperturbo]

Two-Dimensional environments like this are not the best place to go into detail. No, that's not what I am saying. It varies depending on the persons mentality and IQ. Some people recall accurately, while others not so much; in other words, we are not all equal.

You may have misunderstood, or I wasn't clear. Par is still the base line for every PRO, including amateurs like myself. Our golf stats are based on it. I disagree with your belief regarding playing the same courses. I have played in PGA/Champtions and LGPA Pro-Am's as well as just before and the day after events, and from the same tournament tees at some courses, like the Plantation. Additionally, one of my previous pvt clubs where I was on the BOD had touring Pro members and hosted multiple qualifying events which required the course to meet PGA and USGA standards. Not everyone has the same level exposure. We're only subject to the outside world if our intellectual capacity needs such guidance to think. Everything is different for those of us with IQ's over 130. Take care.

[Soloman1]

I don't know about that. I think the majority of golfers do remember when there were no lob wedges because of the age dispersion of golfers.

Here is the breakdown of (US) golfers by age:

Age = Percentage

<30 = 5%

30-39 = 12%

40-49 = 22%

----------------------------------------Age 50 and above are 61% of all golfers, spend 53% of all money in golf, play 50% of all rounds

50-59 = 24%

60-69 =18%

70+ = 19%

[Pepperturbo]

@freowho
For the most part, I agree with @oikos1. Yes, the LW makes it easier but only for golfers that have similar or better than my wedge skill. Usually even a 12 handi isn't that skilled with LW. LW and 2i are #1 & #2 clubs in the bag. Very seldom a days goes by that I am not hitting LW, SW and small PW shots down the hall from my office to another office. Making a course more playable often means easier or tweaking it to accommodate one persons perception of "more" playable. I am not accustom to making wishes or thinking like that. The more playable a course is, the easier it is for me to get mentally lazy. Has something to do with my dyslexia and mild ADD and quotient. I see all golf obstacles simply as challenges to overcome.
Though we all like to believe LW is nothing more than a SW with more loft, that's an oversimplification; due to angles it requires considerably more skill to be effective with one.
Most of the golfers I encountered over ten+ years of match play Inter-Club team competition and today are not very skilled with LW. Many have a love-hate relationship with LW, yet have one in the bag. As I see the game, skill of the player always superceeds any piece of equipment. Many unskilled golfers have clubs they favor but LW is seldom one.
I learned old school golf - know how to use ALL the clubs in my bag in different ways; not something that's taught today. I, too, have played many rounds of 18 out to 6400yds using only 3-4 clubs. My club dujour is 2i, 5 or 6i and SW or LW. Though it represents my ability to use all my clubs in various ways and score in the seventies, its not really important today. Nearly every time I play with friends, colleagues or strangers, someone makes a comment about my ability to hole out or get the ball to tap in range using a wedge. Last round I was sticking sawed-off PW for tap-ins.
You say: "Modern maintenance also makes it easier for the golfer who is out of position. Fairways and greens aren't dry enough and rough is too manicured." Guess you haven't played in CA, AZ or HI much. The last three rounds of golf the rough was sticky and 3-4", pretty much guaranteed GIR wasn't happening without some luck. Take care.

[mahonie]

As an aside to the main debate, I read an article by Roger Cleveland some years ago where he stated that anything above 58* loft was next to useless in the hands of anyone who had trouble developing the necessary swing speed to take advantage of the added loft and still maintain distance control of the golf ball. That was certainly true for me, I could hit a 60* as hard as liked and it would only go travel 30 yards forward...80 yards high but only 30 yards forward. Half shots would go 30 inches off the deck and go 80 yards through the green...I gave up pretty quickly with that. To be honest I struggle with 58* but not nearly so much. 54* works much better.

[Soloman1]

 

[Soloman1]

 

 

 

[marmaduk]

Damn! That was an outstanding presentation.

That pretty much sums up the futile struggle to keep the game how it once was. Technology, gene pool, and mindset are the triumvirate of sport advancement.

After watching that any argument to roll back technology makes no sense because it’s negating gene pool and mindset.

In relation to the Bryson question. Yes, he is taking advantage of technology but he is also leveraging the other two aspects. He is 6’4” and as we all know packing on the muscle (or fat depending on who you talk to) but realistically both. He is leveraging his genetics along with sport and training science to his advantage. Arguably most importantly he is using determination and mindset to do it. Haters are going to hate but he did say that he was going to do this and he has done it. He has stronger willpower than the vast majority on this forum.

golfball and equipment tech + good genes training and protein shakes + determination and follow through = destroying legacy golf. lol

[bscinstnct]

 

The TED thing verifies that much larger talent pools of athletes with ideal skills/attributes for their sport have increased the overall talent levels and, on average, athleticism in pretty much any sport now vs. in the past.

 

This is completely obvious to all of us.

 

So, while the TED guy may bd correct that the pinnacle of athleticism has not increased, his thesis confirms the much deeper fields and competition level.

 

But I really wonder if the “best of the best” does not actually improve through the generations. Like, just via top “specimens” continuing to procreate with other top specimens. If you take two of the best athletes now, and they had a kid. And that kid eventually had a kid with another top athlete. Wouldn’t there be improvement?

 

I don’t know but seems like this would be the case.

[marmaduk]

Good point. I’m sure there must be something to this. NBA and WNBA players have a kid. That kid is WAY more likely to be super tall. But, I wonder if mindset would be more of a determining factor to success for that kid?

If both your parents are successful athletes you are probably way more likely to be one too. Your parents would nurture you and groom you into believing you could do it and then give you a mental parachute in the form of you will always be rich even if you fail so don’t worry about it. Amongst many other things like access to expensive trainers and coaches and yadda yadda

[mahonie]

...or that kid could have 6 toes?

My take on it is that Bryson has identified a ‘loophole’ in the way that PGA Tour golf is set up and he’s exploiting it. I can imagine BCD pondering on how he could maximise his success over say the next 5 years. I’m sure he had his team analyse Strokes Gained and then look at the way courses are set up to identify where those Strokes Gained advantages come from. They quickly realised that PGA Tour courses are set up for the long ball. The Damascus moment came when they realised that there are massive advantages if you get the drives past that 320 yard marker and the penalties for doing so were negligible. All he needed to do was focus on increasing his swing speed, making that swing speed stable and working out what combination of shaft and head created his best launch conditions. Pretty simple really...BCD brought his immense dedication to the table to realise the outcome we are seeing.

Now, what if the analysis of Strokes Gained had identified that ‘distance’ isn’t the loophole but it is accuracy from 185 yards out combined with putting from 25 feet, say. Bit of a stretch I know when you look at the set up of the PGA Tour courses, but imagine if you can short, tight, tree-lined courses where a drive 20 yards offline results in a dropped shot. BCD and his team would be focusing on accuracy off the tee, 7, 8, 9 iron play and putting. The long ball is somewhat negated by the course design, but the cream would still rise to the top in that those guys with the natural talent, skill and dedication would still prevail but it does not necessarily favour the ‘athlete’ who would excel just because he is bigger and faster, a certain amount of guile may be the evolution factor that holds sway. Evolution does not have to follow the dictate that bigger and faster is always better.

[Titleist99]

While you may think that the problem of modern golf is the long accurate drives and the perfect execution of the wedge and nine iron from 150 yards and in.....there's other like myself that think of it as the beauty of the game. I do respect everyone's opinion on the matter but again ..... one persons trash is another person's treasure.

[Titleist99]

I agree that BDC game plan is based on course setup on the PGATOUR......and that is what need to be addressed.