DeChambeau bad for the game?

[physasst]

13 hours ago, Old Tom Morris said:

It's been bomb and gouge for almost twenty years now.  Difference is that Bryson is hitting those long shafted short irons through the rough with a lot of clubhead speed.  It's the first time that US Open rough was ever neutralized by a player.

Yep, hell Tiger and Joh Daly before him, virtually invented bomb and gouge. He was long (20 years ago) off the tee, but wild as hell, he sprayed the ball all over...but he is probably the best ion player EVER to play the game and he relied on his approach shots and excellent short game to bail him out. But he sort of painted that road for the tour stars now...

Edited September 21, 2020 by physasst

[cn34]

Colin Morikawa won with accuracy, Dechambeau with power, DJ played great at the end of the season with a combo of both. End of the day, multiple ways to win golf tournaments. I don't for a second think Dechambeau is going to rattle off 4 majors in a row. His approach works for him, it might work for some amateurs, it might not.

 

I don't think he's bad for the game. I don't like his personality but how he goes about his business is hard work and I don't think acknowledging he got to where he is through hard work is bad for amateurs to accept and adopt. 

[nsxguy]

30 minutes ago, Kilo1545 said:

?  It's a shame you have to go through all that effort, but if you don't, there's easily a 50-50% chance of a straw man popping up.  Big pet peeve of mine.

 

In my office some 25 years ago, a fellow technical supervisor, having been exasperated numerous times by her junior programmers, wrote on my whiteboard "Don't give instructions that can be understood. Give instructions that can't be misunderstood" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[physasst]

1 hour ago, Ferguson said:

 

 

I think it shows how much "he wasn't thinking about stuff" when he was winning.   Now his mind is whirlwind of thoughts.  

 

 

I hear it all the time from my friends who are really good, "when I am playing well, all I think about is the target." 

 

Yeah, I think Duval summed up Spieth perfectly this Open. He said "He's playing golf swing, and he needs to get back to playing golf"

 

M

[thekingsolly]

I think the media has it wrong, it wasn't his driver it was his strategy and a WHITE HOT putter.

[Ferguson]

54 minutes ago, physasst said:

Yeah, I think Duval summed up Spieth perfectly this Open. He said "He's playing golf swing, and he needs to get back to playing golf"

 

M

 

 

Yep, play like a kid. 

 

 

[glk]

Bryson strokes gained in open.

Tee 3rd 5.38    Approach 3rd 6.98   Around Green 2nd 5.42  Putt 18th 4.59

 

For his career (4 full seasons) averages

Tee 18th   Approach 75th   AG 103  Putt 54

last 3 seasons

T 12th  A 62nd  AG 105  Putt 23

last 2 seasons

T 13th  A 87th   AG 113   Ptt 19

 

Improved off Tee and Putting - not so much short game and approach shots.

 

The guy put it all together in the Open and he could have finished 50th in putting and still won.    He won this Open with his long game (beat all but 3 players in the field in T and approach alone) and short game.

 

BTW it was Zach with the white hot putter - lead with 10.19 strokes gained - actually lost stroke AG and gained .35 off tee and approach.    Had Bryson putted like Zach, Tiger's PB open in 2000 would have been in play.

[sevenputts]

Meanwhile Rory and some other guys crying in the press conference.. lol.. Solid job Bryson ?

[chigolfer1]

28 minutes ago, thekingsolly said:

I think the media has it wrong, it wasn't his driver it was his strategy and a WHITE HOT putter.

 

Yep, and brought this up in other thread.   I feel like people think he was egregiously missing the fairway relative to other players.  He wasn't.   That said, what he did is get much closer to the green so his approach shots were better, combined with the fact he can hit out of the rough with limited penalty.

 

It should be pointed out Bryson hit 23 of 56 fairways, 41%.  Well, the field as a whole only hit 39.6%!   I think there is this perception that he hit way less fairways than most of the other players so should have been penalized more.  The fairways were so hard to hit, he just got down much further than everyone else.  

 

Granted, I don't know what the other top 10 players hit fairway wise but maybe someone has that stat?  We know Wolff wasn't exactly a fairway finder.

[chigolfer1]

https://www.usopen.com/stats/player-stats.html#!fairways-hit

 

BD: 23 of 56 fairways hit

MW: 19

LO: 24

HE: 29

XS: 17

DJ: 26

WZ: 17

TF: 22

JT: 21

WS: 23

Edited September 21, 2020 by chigolfer1

[thekingsolly]

12 minutes ago, chigolfer1 said:

 

Yep, and brought this up in other thread.   I feel like people think he was egregiously missing the fairway relative to other players.  He wasn't.   That said, what he did is get much closer to the green so his approach shots were better, combined with the fact he can hit out of the rough with limited penalty.

 

It should be pointed out Bryson hit 23 of 56 fairways, 41%.  Well, the field as a whole only hit 39.6%!   I think there is this perception that he hit way less fairways than most of the other players so should have been penalized more.  The fairways were so hard to hit, he just got down much further than everyone else.  

 

Granted, I don't know what the other top 10 players hit fairway wise but maybe someone has that stat?  We know Wolff wasn't exactly a fairway finder.

100% 

Others with similar length didnt mentally prepare of it like he did. Rory and he were tied for distance of the tee.

 

Rory hit it on and missed the eagle putt, BD makes it.

Bryson had a 97 feet 2 putt, thats what gets it done.

 

Now the masters with no rough!!!!! the greens are going to be glass. Thats the only defence.

 

[Fairway14]

7 hours ago, disco111 said:

Growing the game means getting people interested in playing the game. Honing skills comes after.............  

 

I don't see it like that because my observation is that beginners with no skills, who step out on a regulation length golf course,  get frustrated and quit golf.

But the one's who do it the sensible way, that is getting some instruction and lots of practice range time, playing par 3 or other short courses for their start to the game, end up developing some useful skills. I think a player who follows this type of good sense path is more likely to stick with the game rather than quit it.

[disco111]

55 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

I don't see it like that because my observation is that beginners with no skills, who step out on a regulation length golf course,  get frustrated and quit golf.

But the one's who do it the sensible way, that is getting some instruction and lots of practice range time, playing par 3 or other short courses for their start to the game, end up developing some useful skills. I think a player who follows this type of good sense path is more likely to stick with the game rather than quit it.

Of course stepping out onto a golf course and not knowing how to play would be detrimental to enjoying the game and I've never seen anyone even attempt to do that. If they even attempted to try that at a regulation course, you could bet that they would be instructed to return to the club house, at least any courses that I have played. Anyone who has any interest in the game will surely have someone who will/could offer insights into what to do and how to do it. That's how just about how everyone was introduced to the game started. Like all endeavors, one must know how to before attempting to do. But once they know how to and then they find an appetite for the game, that's when honing skills becomes paramount. Now how much skill development is needed solely depends upon the individual and for some, just playing occasionally fills their desire, but at least they were introduced to the game and afforded the opportunity to give it a try. Places like Top Golf and driving ranges are where folks have their first introduction to hitting a golf ball. From there they either embrace an a further interest or they just want to go wack a ball now and then. This is how you grow the game, by getting people to try their luck at hitting a golf ball. 

[Shilgy]

On 9/20/2020 at 6:14 PM, Fairway14 said:

 

You make some good points.

I do think what has made Bryson especially unique is his commitment to one length clubs and a single plane swing technique. Also, while there have always been especially long hitters in the pro game, Bryson seems to be the most vocal in proclaiming the advantage he perceives extra distance gives him.

The negative aspect of Bryson (or the media) talking about extra distance, is that it may mislead amateur players towards pursuing a nonsense strategy.

It's fine for a highly accomplished world class player to consider extra distance as a way to fine tune a game and lower scoring average from 69 to 68. But for the hack amateur trying to break 80 or 90 or 100, extra distance should be way down on  the list of priorities.

If they chase longer distance by working on improving contact though?

[Shilgy]

23 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Well, golf internet discussion forums are filled with posters who think the reason they shoot high scores is because they don't hit the ball far enough.

Even in this particular thread there are a couple of guys who posted that  the greatest player of all time, Jack Nicklaus, played shots swinging out of his shoes trying for maximum distance. But the truth is that  Nicklaus wrote in his books and has spoken in videos that he swung within himself and very rarely sought maximum distance. On today's US Open broadcast Azinger made the point that Jack Nicklaus liked playing "comfortable golf", which was different than the tee shot distance games DeChambeau and Wolff were playing today. On five different occasions I was in the gallery watching Jack Nicklaus play full 18 hole rounds, either at Pebble or Olympic Club, and I can't recall a single shot when Nicklaus went especially hard at the ball. His game was about putting the ball in a good sense position from which to play his next shot.

So , the above is evidence that some people  are either not aware of what's relevant to good scoring or they are just so anxious to try and pound the ball that they close their ears to any other message.

I’m sure Jack thought he was swinging 75% on most of these swings. But then Rory and DJ in particular appear to be as well. Even Bryson does most of the time.

 

 

[Shilgy]

12 hours ago, physasst said:

Yep, hell Tiger and Joh Daly before him, virtually invented bomb and gouge. He was long (20 years ago) off the tee, but wild as hell, he sprayed the ball all over...but he is probably the best ion player EVER to play the game and he relied on his approach shots and excellent short game to bail him out. But he sort of painted that road for the tour stars now...

20 years ago Tiger was straighter than average. 54th in driving accuracy and talked about overtaking Fred Funk as #1. He hit 71.22% of the fairways and tour average was 67.78%. 
 

https://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.102.y2000.html

[Dr. Block]

21 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I’m sure Jack thought he was swinging 75% on most of these swings. But then Rory and DJ in particular appear to be as well. Even Bryson does most of the time.

 

 

Interesting fact about Jack.  He counter weighted his driver with lead tape so he could play a softer shaft that would give him a little more pop with a smooth swing.  That massive dynamic hip turn gave the optics of an aggressive swing, but he really was all about keeping it smooth and In control. 

[Hawkeye77]

7 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

Interesting fact about Jack.  He counter weighted his driver with lead tape so he could play a softer shaft that would give him a little more pop with a smooth swing.  That massive dynamic hip turn gave the optics of an aggressive swing, but he really was all about keeping it smooth and In control. 

 

It was an aggressive swing - don't fall into that trap.  

 

Whatever you want to call it, he wasn't really swinging "75%", in the sense you or wayofftheFairway14 is asserting he was.  

 

The counterweighting he said slowed down his hands for a smoother swing, but nothing about playing a softer shaft with more "pop", lol.  It adds weight in the hands, may make the swing weight seem lighter, may not, but he wasn't trying to time some noodle of a shaft out there, he wanted a feel that would make his dispersion less.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Hawkeye77

[games]

There's 100% all out, full blown no-control swing that is done in conditioning sessions to achieve maximum "potential."

 

Then there is the 100% swing employed in competition.

 

The conditioning swing enables maximization of the competition swing.  The competition swing may truly be 80 or 90% of the conditioning swing.  But for competitive purposes and situations it's all-out, 100%.

[fawley]

19 hours ago, chigolfer1 said:

https://www.usopen.com/stats/player-stats.html#!fairways-hit

 

BD: 23 of 56 fairways hit

MW: 19

LO: 24

HE: 29

XS: 17

DJ: 26

WZ: 17

TF: 22

JT: 21

WS: 23

 

Please don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

[Dr. Block]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

It was an aggressive swing - don't fall into that trap.  

 

Whatever you want to call it, he wasn't really swinging "75%", in the sense you or wayofftheFairway14 is asserting he was.  

 

The counterweighting he said slowed down his hands for a smoother swing, but nothing about playing a softer shaft with more "pop", lol.  It adds weight in the hands, may make the swing weight seem lighter, may not, but he wasn't trying to time some noodle of a shaft out there, he wanted a feel that would make his dispersion less.

My mistake.  I don’t know why I thought I read that about the softer shaft.  Did a little follow up research, turns out he counter balanced with a wooden dowel filled with lead.  Pretty inventive.  
 

[Bubbtubbs]

On 9/20/2020 at 11:13 AM, nsxguy said:

 

Back when Jack played there was no such thing as a launch monitor.

 

There is NO WAY anybody hits full shots at (a real) 75% effort.

I agree. It's more of a mental thing - you think 75% but the reality is that it's likely more like 90-95% with a more efficient tempo than going at it.

[naval2006]

BD won the tournament in great fashion.  You may not like the guy but he's a genuine champion, hands down.  He forces his golf to play the type of game bombers do.  He's found his way to it, which can only be done in super pro sport.  Pro and am golf have never walked so much more apart than these days.  If the media talks about it, it is because there's something to be talked about.  Perhaps in 5 or 10 years most pro golfers do what BD is doing now and there is another era in our game at pro level. 

 

But remember that you don't win a US Open by 6 only bombing the course.   

[Naptime]

I don't think he's bad for the game.  More that he has a particular way of doing things and sometimes will get rewarded for it.  I do think he has a Frankenstein-like full swing that may be hard to sustain, and I've never liked anchored putting.  But when he's not on his game he scores poorly.  Will be interesting to see him in next Ryder Cup play.  He had zero points in 3 matches in 2018.

[Fairway14]

10 hours ago, Dr. Block said:

 That massive dynamic hip turn gave the optics of an aggressive swing, but he really was all about keeping it smooth and In control. 

 

You make a good point here. In general terms, when amateurs visit a Tour event for the first time they are amazed at the "effortless power" appearing when watching the Tour pros strike the ball.

While amateurs usually make inefficient swings powered by their arms, Tour pros utilize their body's to make proper weight shifts-pivots back and through the ball.

DeChambeau is not satisfied with traditional Tour pro full turn; he is cranking it up a notch by studying long drive competitors for insights towards making the body move in ways to gain extra distance.

[tw_focus]

The guy has won exactly one tournament that matters and everyone is in a panic. Wake me up when he wins a Tiger Slam. He's not #1 in the world, not even close. Relax folks.

[Ri_Redneck]

On 9/20/2020 at 8:59 PM, Fairway14 said:

 

That statement is misleading because it does not specify that the long hitter must also have a sensational short game. Without a great short game and putting game no long hitter shoots low scores, regardless of the tee boxes they play.

But do they shoot lower scores than they would if they were 40 yds shorter? THAT is the question. If so, then distance is allowing them to score better.

 

BT

[Fairway14]

6 minutes ago, Ri_Redneck said:

But do they shoot lower scores than they would if they were 40 yds shorter? THAT is the question. If so, then distance is allowing them to score better.

 

BT

 

Not really. Consider that long hitters traditionally do not have excellent wedges game and, or, putt very well. And some of the long drive competitors don't even play golf and, or, shoot above 85.

There is a popular misperception that a player having 120 yard approach shots all day will shoot a lower score than the player having 170 yard approach shots. But that 50 yards of extra tee ball distance means nothing if the longer driver does not have the skills to strike reasonably accurate iron and wedges shots, precise chips, make putts etc....

On Tour all the players have excellent short games, so for that level of play the extra tee ball yardage may provide a scoring benefit. But for the amateur game, where horrible short games are common, extra tee box yardage and, or, hitting lesser clubs into the greens, may not provide any scoring benefit.

I think it's best if amateurs disregard what's happening when a Tour pro gains some tee box yardage and starts winning more tournaments. That factor is only relevant in a tournament field where every player has a sensational short game. 

 

[Strategery]

3 hours ago, games said:

There's 100% all out, full blown no-control swing that is done in conditioning sessions to achieve maximum "potential."

 

Then there is the 100% swing employed in competition.

 

The conditioning swing enables maximization of the competition swing.  The competition swing may truly be 80 or 90% of the conditioning swing.  But for competitive purposes and situations it's all-out, 100%.

 

This is 100%:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-18BTegXK10

[Ri_Redneck]

5 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Not really. Consider that long hitters traditionally do not have excellent wedges game and, or, putt very well. And some of the long drive competitors don't even play golf and, or, shoot above 85.

There is a popular misperception that a player having 120 yard approach shots all day will shoot a lower score than the player having 170 yard approach shots. But that 50 yards of extra tee ball distance means nothing if the longer driver does not have the skills to strike reasonably accurate iron and wedges shots, precise chips, make putts etc....

On Tour all the players have excellent short games, so for that level of play the extra tee ball yardage may provide a scoring benefit. But for the amateur game, where horrible short games are common, extra tee box yardage and, or, hitting lesser clubs into the greens, may not provide any scoring benefit.

I think it's best if amateurs disregard what's happening when a Tour pro gains some tee box yardage and starts winning more tournaments. That factor is only relevant in a tournament field where every player has a sensational short game. 

 

I think if you would change your term "amateurs" to Beginners, it would make your point far better. What you describe in every post is a beginner who has no skill other than what they were born with. Amateurs vary greatly from that. There are TONS of amateurs who would benefit greatly from added tee shot length, just as there are tons who would benefit from short game work. Making blanket statements saying looking for more distance won't work for amateurs is just not true. BTW, I agree with your posts 100% as pertaining to beginners.

 

BT