DeChambeau bad for the game?

[Shilgy]

9 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

"Strokes gained" implies that some extra tee ball distance may help a Tour player win an event, but that is within the context of a Tour player tournament  field, where every single player  has a sensational short game.

This thread topic is about how a focus on distance may be detrimental to an amateur players game." Trotting out "strokes gained" is not relevant to the amateur game, where players miss greens from 120 yards, blade bunker shots, leave chips 20 feet from the hole , often three putt etc...

Did you read the post I replied to? Which was your own post regarding every D1 college team, State Am, Club Pro association event, min Tour around the world  player? 
 

And strokes gained is important for every player to assist in identifying where exactly they need the most improvement.
 

 

[sticksgolf]

3 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

My point is that the media talking heads saying "the game has changed" is a harmful message. The last thing an 80's or 90's shooter should be thinking about is more distance and, or, missing fairways.

Sure there are a few dozen Tour players who might want to try for extra swing speed and extra yardage, but even the majority of them would find doing so would increase their scoring average rather than lower it.

To answer your question, the talking heads on NBC and Golf Channel should be saying "DeChambeau's strategy is one that only a few of the world's top players should consider pursuing"

 

I agree with this, especially as to DeChambeau. He hasn't "changed the game" yet and may never. Announcers said the same thing about Tiger Woods when he was 21 and it was actually true. DeChambeau is 24th in strokes gained putting. If he was 20 yards shorter off the tee and number 1 in strokes gained putting his overall result may actually improve. Golf has a good amount of equalizing mechanisms built into it.

 

There is also the injury component whether we're talking about a tour player or a handicap player. Swinging with that much apparent effort will not serve DeChambeau's longevity. Tiger Woods did not looking like he was going at the ball anywhere near as hard and his body is toast.

 

 

[Fairway14]

9 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Did you read the post I replied to? Which was your own post regarding every D1 college team, State Am, Club Pro association event, min Tour around the world  player? 
 

And strokes gained is important for every player to assist in identifying where exactly they need the most improvement.
 

 

 

Yes, what about it ?

Most all college players, the club pros, top amateurs etc... do not have sensational short games. There are no current Tour players without a sensational short game. 

[Fairway14]

8 minutes ago, sticksgolf said:

Swinging with that much apparent effort will not serve DeChambeau's longevity. Tiger Woods did not looking like he was going at the ball anywhere near as hard and his body is toast.

 

 

 

Yes. And traditional golf instruction advocates having the same -similar swing pace-tempo throughout the bag. For most players, swinging the driver with an especially hard-fast pace makes transitioning to the other clubs within the bag too awkward and challenging.

Regarding Tiger, more so than anything to do with swinging a golf club, I believe his physical injuries have been caused by his habits of running 5 plus miles per day and also weight training with too heavy of weights.

[nsxguy]

42 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

"Strokes gained" implies that some extra tee ball distance may help a Tour player win an event, but that is within the context of a Tour player tournament  field, where every single player  has a sensational short game.

This thread topic is about how a focus on distance may be detrimental to an amateur players game." Trotting out "strokes gained" is not relevant to the amateur game, where players miss greens from 120 yards, blade bunker shots, leave chips 20 feet from the hole , often three putt etc...

 

With the possible exception of a spastic putting stroke, I have never seen any golfer, at ANY level, who, on balance, didn't score better from CLOSER to the hole,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i.e. proximity to the hole.

 

And that includes the 20+ handicappers who are renowned for chunking 40 yards pitches. On average even THEY will score better from 40 yards than they will from 60, better from 60 than 80, etc., etc., etc.................

[tannyhoban]

35 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Yes. And traditional golf instruction advocates having the same -similar swing pace-tempo throughout the bag. For most players, swinging the driver with an especially hard-fast pace makes transitioning to the other clubs within the bag too awkward and challenging.

Regarding Tiger, more so than anything to do with swinging a golf club, I believe his physical injuries have been caused by his habits of running 5 plus miles per day and also weight training with too heavy of weights.

That's not true going back to Grout with Nicklaus. You have a wild imagination.

[Fairway14]

24 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

With the possible exception of a spastic putting stroke, I have never seen any golfer, at ANY level, who, on balance, didn't score better from CLOSER to the hole,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, i.e. proximity to the hole.

 

And that includes the 20+ handicappers who are renowned for chunking 40 yards pitches. On average even THEY will score better from 40 yards than they will from 60, better from 60 than 80, etc., etc., etc.................

 

For any player who wants to shoot lower scores, it's a matter of good sense priorities.

Ideally, only players who can shoot 90 or better play a full length regulation golf course. Driving ranges and par 3 courses are a perfect place for people to learn how to swing a club, playing short irons until those are struck consistently solid and straight. Once that level of skill is attained the player can move on to playing short length courses and get comfortable swinging longer irons, hybrids, fairway woods etc... Again, only moving to the longer shafted clubs once the skill is there to strike the short shafted high loft clubs consistently solid and straight. And by playing the short courses the player is also learning green side short game skills.

So, after the process of driving range time, par 3 courses, short length courses , by the time a player graduates to a full length regulation courses I don't think he/she will be a "20 handicap" and, or, "chunking 40 yard pitches". He/she will have the skills to be on or next to the greens in regulation and play the course as it was designed to be played.

 

[nsxguy]

8 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

For any player who wants to shoot lower scores, it's a matter of good sense priorities.

Ideally, only players who can shoot 90 or better play a full length regulation golf course. Driving ranges and par 3 courses are a perfect place for people to learn how to swing a club, playing short irons until those are struck consistently solid and straight. Once that level of skill is attained the player can move on to playing short length courses and get comfortable swinging longer irons, hybrids, fairway woods etc... Again, only moving to the longer shafted clubs once the skill is there to strike the short shafted high loft clubs consistently solid and straight. And by playing the short courses the player is also learning green side short game skills.

So, after the process of driving range time, par 3 courses, short length courses , by the time a player graduates to a full length regulation courses I don't think he/she will be a "20 handicap" and, or, "chunking 40 yard pitches". He/she will have the skills to be on or next to the greens in regulation and play the course as it was designed to be played.

 

 

My friend, now you're moving the goalposts.

 

You were complaining about the great distances the ball is being hit (and the announcers talking about it) and its negative effects on the growing of the game.

 

Now you want to restrict who gets on the course and what they must do before they get to play ? How is THAT "growing the game" ?

 

No matter. "Chunking" wasn't my point. "Good or bad players" wasn't my point. And I mentioned dispersion earlier when I posted about increased distance.

 

Possibly there are few exceptions but, as there are exceptions to most "rules", no matter what anyone's ability is proximity to the hole is a tremendous factor in how one scores.

Edited September 20, 2020 by nsxguy

[Fairway14]

24 minutes ago, tannyhoban said:

That's not true going back to Grout with Nicklaus. You have a wild imagination.

 

What about Grout and, or, Nicklaus ?

Grout insisted on a particular grip technique and refused to teach a player who did not use that technique. Turning around a steady head was another Grout conviction that Nicklaus maintained throughout his career. As for swing pace-tempo Nicklaus rarely went at the ball especially hard or fast, only doing so when a particular shot called for it.

[Soloman1]

24 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

For any player who wants to shoot lower scores, it's a matter of good sense priorities.

Ideally, only players who can shoot 90 or better play a full length regulation golf course. Driving ranges and par 3 courses are a perfect place for people to learn how to swing a club, playing short irons until those are struck consistently solid and straight. Once that level of skill is attained the player can move on to playing short length courses and get comfortable swinging longer irons, hybrids, fairway woods etc... Again, only moving to the longer shafted clubs once the skill is there to strike the short shafted high loft clubs consistently solid and straight. And by playing the short courses the player is also learning green side short game skills.

So, after the process of driving range time, par 3 courses, short length courses , by the time a player graduates to a full length regulation courses I don't think he/she will be a "20 handicap" and, or, "chunking 40 yard pitches". He/she will have the skills to be on or next to the greens in regulation and play the course as it was designed to be played.

 

 

Well, there we have it. The Messiah has spoken with omniscient wisdom. Carry forth and play according to the teachings.

And tread lightly and do not question too much, lest you be smitten with OB's, shanks, the yips and double bogeys.

 

 

(Sorry. My filter is at the cleaners, so I don't have one today.)

Edited September 20, 2020 by Soloman1

[jdl]

Hate to break it to you, but I've been playing golf for 30 years and there's always been guys that can't break 100 hitting driver on every non-par3, trying to hit it as far as they can. It's not Bryson's doing. If anything, it's the modern 460cc driver that's exacerbated that problem. The fact that the technology now gives them even a glimmer of hope that they'll find that tee shot just feeds the beast.

[Fairway14]

11 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

How is THAT "growing the game" ?

 

 

Consider that a primary obstacle to "growing the game" has always been that people don't have the skills to control the golf ball reasonably well. 20 years ago Tiger's popularity created an influx of newcomers to golf courses who bought a set of clubs but soon became frustrated by hacking it around, duffing shots, looking for balls all day etc..., and they gave up the game, stopped playing.

The only constructive agenda to grow the game will be one which promotes learning technique skills and practicing same. 

[Fairway14]

1 minute ago, jdl said:

Hate to break it to you, but I've been playing golf for 30 years and there's always been guys that can't break 100 hitting driver on every non-par3, trying to hit it as far as they can. It's not Bryson's doing. If anything, it's the modern 460cc driver that's exacerbated that problem. The fact that the technology now gives them even a glimmer of hope that they'll find that tee shot just feeds the beast.

 

Agreed !

[tannyhoban]

15 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

What about Grout and, or, Nicklaus ?

Grout insisted on a particular grip technique and refused to teach a player who did not use that technique. Turning around a steady head was another Grout conviction that Nicklaus maintained throughout his career. As for swing pace-tempo Nicklaus rarely went at the ball especially hard or fast, only doing so when a particular shot called for it.

Swing as hard as you can. You left that out. Selective amnesia.

[MtlJeff]

Deschambeau is basically golf's version of the NBAs Houston Rockets.  He reduced the game to simple math and went after it as such

 

10 years from now he'll probably be looked at as the pioneer who changed the game for better or worse, because it seems like he'll be sticking around 

 

I dont mind him at all, the game ebbs and flows, if we get 100 Brysons the course setups will change and other things will become more valuable again 

 

One of the side effects of the Rockets shooting all those 3s is that the game has gotten way more athletic,  and boring post ups have died. There's a lot more pace and more athletes on the floor at the same time.  Some things that Bryson is doing may lead to good things too

 

One thing that does concern me though is the USGA is a bunch of fools will overreact to this. They are worse for the game than Bryson is  , because they will ruin it for amateurs   , which bryson cannot do

[Fairway14]

3 minutes ago, tannyhoban said:

Swing as hard as you can. You left that out. Selective amnesia.

 

I wrote Grout's convictions that matter. Nicklaus only suggested "swing as hard as one can" within the context of using Grout's grip technique and turning around a steady head (both of which naturally promote a smooth effective swing pace-tempo).

Taken by itself "swing as hard as you can" is misleading.

[iutodd]

After watching all this coverage...Bryson is bad for golf coverage. 
 

Every five seconds they talk about his bulking up or how he swings as hard as possible or how he’s a “scientist” or how he knew algebra at age 6 or some other dang thing. 

 

Especially with Wolff hitting it PAST him it makes all the “bulk up/ball speed/grip it and rip it” hype seem dumb.  Because it is dumb. I watched Woods swing as hard as possible all the time 20 years ago.

 

He’s also hardly the first to tinker with his approach to the game or his equipment or his body (again TIGER). It is interesting I guess it just seems WAY overplayed.

 

He might win today and that will be great - but acting like this is some sort of revolution or something we’ve never seen before is a bit silly.

[tannyhoban]

Just now, Fairway14 said:

 

I wrote Grout's convictions that matter. Nicklaus only suggested "swing as hard as one can" within the context of using Grout's grip technique and turning around a steady head (both of which naturally promote a smooth effective swing pace-tempo).

Taken by itself "swing as hard as you can" is misleading.

Now you're  putting your interpretation into the very fundamental beginning of Jack's swing. The.  very  first   thing was swing as hard as you can. Period.

RIF. 
 

thank you good night!

[sticksgolf]

In the end, I blame the announcers for acting as if DeChambeau has fundamentally changed the game. He may someday, he may not, and they know not. Their job is to talk, hopefully about the Open, but they often feel the need to point out a "big change" whether it has actually occurred or not.

 

DeChambeau seems like a bright, quirky, Ok sort of guy who may believe a little too much of what he concludes through his understanding of science. Golf has occasionally made players like him look silly down the line, but it's up to him to find his own way.

 

The only thing I don't like about him is that he plays too slow.

Edited September 20, 2020 by sticksgolf

[kredik]

Yes,I hope so -weed out the casuals and mash potatoers.Retun it to a non-spectacle exhibition its becoming.

[Dave230]

Has played great golf today but just not that interesting for me when he wins. On the course he is painfully slow and when things go bad he blames everyone but himself. Big, big driving but not the most aesthetically pleasing way of playing.

 

Off the course he is quite quirky and entertaining, but if he was dominating the game I would find it off-putting.

[ebrasmus21]

BAD should be kicked off the tour, permanently.  
 

1.  He thinks differently than other golfers before him 

2.  He tries different things even if they are considered unpopular 

3.  He overpowers golf courses 

4.  He actually has successfully gain power through hard work and dedication 

5.  He uses technology to his advantage 

6.  Science 

7.  He is defiant towards the joke that is the USGA 

8.  He wears that funny cap

9.  His personality is challenging for others to relate to

10.  Despite the above 9 points, with consideration to the 7+ billion people on planet earth he is one of the best golfers alive

 

In summary, he’s bad for golf. 

[SEP1006]

Bryson is great for the game of golf. Showing that there is a different way than the standard conventional golf swing and equipment. Sure he is a little slower but he is definitely not the only one. Doesn't care what people think about his methods or strategy just goes about his business.

 

KUDO's to him for sticking to his guns!!!!

[molecularman]

1 hour ago, iutodd said:

After watching all this coverage...Bryson is bad for golf coverage. 
 

Every five seconds they talk about his bulking up or how he swings as hard as possible or how he’s a “scientist” or how he knew algebra at age 6 or some other dang thing. 

 

Especially with Wolff hitting it PAST him it makes all the “bulk up/ball speed/grip it and rip it” hype seem dumb.  Because it is dumb. I watched Woods swing as hard as possible all the time 20 years ago.

 

He’s also hardly the first to tinker with his approach to the game or his equipment or his body (again TIGER). It is interesting I guess it just seems WAY overplayed.

 

He might win today and that will be great - but acting like this is some sort of revolution or something we’ve never seen before is a bit silly.

Totally agree.

Thought it was hilarious to see Wolff bomb it past Bryson on a few occasions.   Bryson swings out of his shoes,  makes terrible contact and carries it 280.   All the announcers  "Oh my god, look at how far he hits it!!!".   Bryson finally hits a solid one,  with 50 yards of roll  "Oh my, he is changing the game!   Note the other drive that was just as long belonged to Bubba".      

There is no doubt that Bryson's approach works for him,  but he isn't doing anything any better than anyone else.   I also think his putting style should be illegal as he is anchoring the putter to his arm.     But admittedly I am not a fan of his. 

[Duffer222]

You should’ve started this topic back when Tiger was beating everyone in the field.  Maybe he would’ve listened, but I doubt it.

[Ironman_32]

1 hour ago, iutodd said:

After watching all this coverage...Bryson is bad for golf coverage. 
 

Every five seconds they talk about his bulking up or how he swings as hard as possible or how he’s a “scientist” or how he knew algebra at age 6 or some other dang thing. 

 

Especially with Wolff hitting it PAST him it makes all the “bulk up/ball speed/grip it and rip it” hype seem dumb.  Because it is dumb. I watched Woods swing as hard as possible all the time 20 years ago.

 

He’s also hardly the first to tinker with his approach to the game or his equipment or his body (again TIGER). It is interesting I guess it just seems WAY overplayed.

 

He might win today and that will be great - but acting like this is some sort of revolution or something we’ve never seen before is a bit silly.

 I don't think he's bad for the game; the announcers/network not changing their play book is bad for the game. To a point, they need to say something different, and make Bryson stand out to a more casual fan. 

 

Its just the next step. Tiger came out and changed that game, now we have the younger guys hitting it hard. Bryson was doing that but also found a way to help himself. One day one of the actual long drive guys is going to find a short game and dominate with that. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The only part I don't like is his pace of play.  I do like the fact that he swings differently and I am fascinated by the single length irons... it totally makes sense that they reduce variables that can impact a golf shot.  There's probably gonna be a run on SL Irons!

[SEP1006]

14 minutes ago, molecularman said:

Totally agree.

Thought it was hilarious to see Wolff bomb it past Bryson on a few occasions.   Bryson swings out of his shoes,  makes terrible contact and carries it 280.   All the announcers  "Oh my god, look at how far he hits it!!!".   Bryson finally hits a solid one,  with 50 yards of roll  "Oh my, he is changing the game!   Note the other drive that was just as long belonged to Bubba".      

There is no doubt that Bryson's approach works for him,  but he isn't doing anything any better than anyone else.   I also think his putting style should be illegal as he is anchoring the putter to his arm.     But admittedly I am not a fan of his. 

 

Well he was #9 in the world BEFORE the Open, so saying "but he isn't doing anything any better than anyone else." isn't very accurate.

 

[molecularman]

1 minute ago, SEP1006 said:

 

Well he was #9 in the world BEFORE the Open, so saying "but he isn't doing anything any better than anyone else." isn't very accurate.

 

It is.    How many majors did Tiger win at Bryson's age?   

Despite how different Bryson is -  his approach hasn't made him one of the best to ever play the game, at least not yet.  At this pace, he isn't in the same league as Jack and Tiger.

Perhaps he has turned a corner and starts to absolutely dominate, but despite how different and "revolutionary"  he is,  he isn't the dominate force that we have seen of others.  

[SEP1006]

13 minutes ago, molecularman said:

It is.    How many majors did Tiger win at Bryson's age?   

Despite how different Bryson is -  his approach hasn't made him one of the best to ever play the game, at least not yet.  At this pace, he isn't in the same league as Jack and Tiger.

Perhaps he has turned a corner and starts to absolutely dominate, but despite how different and "revolutionary"  he is,  he isn't the dominate force that we have seen of others.  

 

I never said or implied he is one of the best to ever play the game or that he was going to dominate from here on out. I only said your statement wasn't accurate.

 

Again congrats to Bryson !!!!!

Edited September 20, 2020 by SEP1006