Distance, wins and the Tour, am I way off?

[mallrat]

With the golf world talking about Brysons length and basically crowning him as the front runner in every event going forward, are they off or am I? 
 

Since the tour has resumed we have seen Stewart Cink, Martin Laird, Jim Herman and Webb Simpson win. Now they all are long enough but I wouldn’t consider any one of them long. Zach Johnson, who is short by your standards has had a good couple months. Yes Bryson and DJ have won but are we missing the point in talking about their length? 
 

Now, yes, a lot of these guys are long, JT, Morikawa, Niemann and quite a few others but they aren’t the longest. Am I missing something or is the length just a good talking/click bait point? Should the real conversation be about being long enough?

 

Sorry if this has be rehashed 1,000,000 times

 

 

[Holy Moses]

There is an undeniable correlation between hitting it longer and winning more money on the PGA Tour. The top players haven’t played most tournaments this fall and the younger and longer Korn Ferry grads didn’t move up.

[mallrat]

I’m not saying there isn’t but should the conversation be more about “long enough” than “longest”?

 

 

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, mallrat said:

I’m not saying there isn’t but should the conversation be more about “long enough” than “longest”?

 

 

IMO.....there is a such thing as long enough. Last year the tour average was 296 yards. To me the sweet spot is 285- 300 and anything over that is not as beneficial as one would think.....Just look at the top twenty driving leaders you won't find many prolific winners. If you can hit 285-300 you can compete with anyone at any course...IMO

[gvogel]

12 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

IMO.....there is a such thing as long enough. Last year the tour average was 296 yards. To me the sweet spot is 285- 300 and anything over that is not as beneficial as one would think.....Just look at the top twenty driving leaders you won't find many prolific winners. If you can hit 285-300 you can compete with anyone at any course...IMO

I'm guessing that the guys who were in the 310 to 315 category did better, per event, than the guys in the 295 - 300 category.  Of course, that group includes Rory, DJ and Matthew Wolf.  Webb Simpson, Colin Morikawa and Dan Berger were in the 295 - 300 group.

[Titleist99]

People keep telling me that the longer you hit the ball the more money you win and the more tournaments you win....then I look at the top twenty in driving distance and that tells me something different.

[gentles]

7 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

People keep telling me that the longer you hit the ball the more money you win and the more tournaments you win....then I look at the top twenty in driving distance and that tells me something different.

 

If you hit the ball 25 yards past someone else, you get that benefit every single time you tee it up, including being able to hit a club or two less from the same distance. Guys like Rory can hit a 2 iron or 3 wood the PGA tour average distance if they wanted to. 

 

Good short game depends on skill, but also getting good lies, missing in the right spots, no bad breaks on the greens and all the inherent uncertainty that comes when the ball is interacting with the ground. 

 

There is way less variation in driving statistics (i.e. who leads strokes gained off the tee) compared to putting which even for the best players fluctuates from week to week. 

 

It's no surprise a guy like Webb, who is probably the best player in the world apart from driving, can barely scrape into the Top5 on the back of some career best putting stats, while guys like Rory, DJ, Brooks, JT, Rahm are perennially in that echelon of player despite some shaky putting.

[Golfjack]

7 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

People keep telling me that the longer you hit the ball the more money you win and the more tournaments you win....then I look at the top twenty in driving distance and that tells me something different.

Same abilities, just that one guy hits it further.  Which guy will win more?  Long hitter.  If you want to say the long hitter can't putt then sure.  Compare him to a short hitter who can't putt.  Who makes more money over their career?

[phizzy30]

Length means having shorter irons into greens.  Shorter irons equates to potentially more accurate balls and more backspin which means shorter length putts/birdies.  It's the formula for success for golf period. 

[bladehunter]

Truth is .....

 

as @Titleist99 says .  Lowest score wins. There is no extra points for long drive.   But.... huge but...

 

the media is pushing the distance narrative and effecting the new players coming up .....so that they all chase distance now.  The real issue is down the road when they all try to be “ Bryson”.  At some point i fear the only ones who get through the college years will be the Wolfe , Bryson , champ types.   
 

I don’t personally believe the “ closest to the hole wins “ speech  whne we’re talking inside 100 yards.  A hot putter will contend no matter what.  

[Ironman_32]

Distance is like height in the NBA; the tallest guy is necessary the best NBA. However,  height is almost a requirement to a certain point. For golf, hitting it the farthest doesn't mean you'll be the best, but you can't survive on tour hitting it 240. 

 

On Bryson, people overlook that the primary reason he did all the stuff was for power, secondary for length. When Brooks won the PGA at Bethpage, there was only a handful of guys who could have won bc only a handful can muscle it out of the rough and have the required length. That's what he's looking for. It's like Matthew Fitzpatrick complaining his week, he's probably almost half the size of Bryson, and can hit that drives that fly 350; but put him in the rough and its harder for him to dig it out. 

[johnseg]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Truth is .....

 

as @Titleist99 says .  Lowest score wins. There is no extra points for long drive.   But.... huge but...

 

the media is pushing the distance narrative and effecting the new players coming up .....so that they all chase distance now.  The real issue is down the road when they all try to be “ Bryson”.  At some point i fear the only ones who get through the college years will be the Wolfe , Bryson , champ types.   
 

I don’t personally believe the “ closest to the hole wins “ speech  whne we’re talking inside 100 yards.  A hot putter will contend no matter what.  

If you to have the proper charisma to inspire a generation to mimic the approach. BAD goes out and starts winning at a historic pace a la Tiger and the media swoon over him yes he will be emulated, but if he has a great pro career similar to DJ kids won't be saying, "I am Bryson DeChambeau."

 

To a certain degree Nike knew how to market Tiger and that along with his youth, fist pumps and general excitement with him built that brand. I don't see that with BAD.

[Hawkeye77]

On 10/13/2020 at 10:43 PM, mallrat said:

With the golf world talking about Brysons length and basically crowning him as the front runner in every event going forward, are they off or am I? 
 

Since the tour has resumed we have seen Stewart Cink, Martin Laird, Jim Herman and Webb Simpson win. Now they all are long enough but I wouldn’t consider any one of them long. Zach Johnson, who is short by your standards has had a good couple months. Yes Bryson and DJ have won but are we missing the point in talking about their length? 
 

Now, yes, a lot of these guys are long, JT, Morikawa, Niemann and quite a few others but they aren’t the longest. Am I missing something or is the length just a good talking/click bait point? Should the real conversation be about being long enough?

 

Sorry if this has be rehashed 1,000,000 times

 

 

 

LOL, it doesn't HAVE to be rehashed. 😉

 

BTW, Tiger had marital problems and Jordan can't find his swing.

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by Hawkeye77

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, johnseg said:

If you to have the proper charisma to inspire a generation to mimic the approach. BAD goes out and starts winning at a historic pace a la Tiger and the media swoon over him yes he will be emulated, but if he has a great pro career similar to DJ kids won't be saying, "I am Bryson DeChambeau."

 

To a certain degree Nike knew how to market Tiger and that along with his youth, fist pumps and general excitement with him built that brand. I don't see that with BAD.

I would say Tiger marketed Tiger. He had ten seasons in which he won at least five times. It has been done four other times in the last 20 years. In 2006 he had a total strokes gained of 3.3 per round. That does not need a whole lot of marketing.

[m d g]

On 10/14/2020 at 2:09 PM, Titleist99 said:

People keep telling me that the longer you hit the ball the more money you win and the more tournaments you win....

So the "putt for dough" part is pure BS? : )

[Hawkeye77]

Putting well relative to the field correlates more to winning in a particular week. 
 

Speaking of Tiger, and not a giant Broadie fan but this is interesting in terms of a way to look at best streaks ---- it's TIGER (Bryson not visible)!

 

https://golf.com/news/features/hottest-stretches-modern-era-pga-tour/

 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Hawkeye77

[dmecca2]

23 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Truth is .....

 

as @Titleist99 says .  Lowest score wins. There is no extra points for long drive.   But.... huge but...

 

the media is pushing the distance narrative and effecting the new players coming up .....so that they all chase distance now.  The real issue is down the road when they all try to be “ Bryson”.  At some point i fear the only ones who get through the college years will be the Wolfe , Bryson , champ types.   
 

I don’t personally believe the “ closest to the hole wins “ speech  whne we’re talking inside 100 yards.  A hot putter will contend no matter what.  

I wish I went to college now instead of 10 years ago. My whole college career was spent getting yelled at to dial it back. It would've been nice to hear, "hey, let's find you 10 more yards"

[pinhigh27]

On 10/15/2020 at 8:46 AM, bladehunter said:

Truth is .....

 

as @Titleist99 says .  Lowest score wins. There is no extra points for long drive.   But.... huge but...

 

the media is pushing the distance narrative and effecting the new players coming up .....so that they all chase distance now.  The real issue is down the road when they all try to be “ Bryson”.  At some point i fear the only ones who get through the college years will be the Wolfe , Bryson , champ types.   
 

I don’t personally believe the “ closest to the hole wins “ speech  whne we’re talking inside 100 yards.  A hot putter will contend no matter what.  

It’s not the media it’s basic stats. 
 

Yes a hot putter can contend but a hot putter is unreliable and hitting it far with good proximity really isn’t 

[pinhigh27]

There’s

On 10/15/2020 at 9:22 AM, Ironman_32 said:

Distance is like height in the NBA; the tallest guy is necessary the best NBA. However,  height is almost a requirement to a certain point. For golf, hitting it the farthest doesn't mean you'll be the best, but you can't survive on tour hitting it 240. 

 

On Bryson, people overlook that the primary reason he did all the stuff was for power, secondary for length. When Brooks won the PGA at Bethpage, there was only a handful of guys who could have won bc only a handful can muscle it out of the rough and have the required length. That's what he's looking for. It's like Matthew Fitzpatrick complaining his week, he's probably almost half the size of Bryson, and can hit that drives that fly 350; but put him in the rough and its harder for him to dig it out. 

Fitzpatrick cannot fly it 350 in any weather condition besides a hurricane. 
 

digging it out of rough is club head speed and AoA. 

[bladehunter]

1 minute ago, pinhigh27 said:

It’s not the media it’s basic stats. 
 

Yes a hot putter can contend but a hot putter is unreliable and hitting it far with good proximity really isn’t 

I’d point you to this past weeks winner who rolled in everything he looked at Sunday.  
 

The stats aren’t wrong. But the thing is. Everybody is long with today’s equipment.   So it actually is kicked back to inside 100 yards.   Which is a good thing. 
 

ive played as much real tournament golf as I can the last 3 years and I can tell you that 99 % of the time the hot putter wins.  Everybody is long enough at my level to hit tons of wedges in every round.  

[pinhigh27]

4 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I’d point you to this past weeks winner who rolled in everything he looked at Sunday.  
 

The stats aren’t wrong. But the thing is. Everybody is long with today’s equipment.   So it actually is kicked back to inside 100 yards.   Which is a good thing. 
 

ive played as much real tournament golf as I can the last 3 years and I can tell you that 99 % of the time the hot putter wins.  Everybody is long enough at my level to hit tons of wedges in every round.  

It’s not just about winning first of all. Look up top 20 Putter’s and top 20 driving distance and tell me who wins more money , it’s not even close. 
 

it’s not like you magically hit it similar proximity from 100 yards vs 50, closer is essentially always better if both in fairway or rough or etc. 

 

Driving https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02567.y2020.html

putting 

https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02564.y2020.html

 

[bladehunter]

6 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

It’s not just about winning first of all. Look up top 20 Putter’s and top 20 driving distance and tell me who wins more money , it’s not even close. 
 

it’s not like you magically hit it similar proximity from 100 yards vs 50, closer is essentially always better if both in fairway or rough or etc. 

 

Driving https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02567.y2020.html

putting 

https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.02564.y2020.html

 

That’s the thing though. I said hot putter.  Not statistically great putter.  You’re not going to win without one.  Drive it inside 50 on every hole and don’t make the putt and you lose.  
 

somebody needs to do a study of the best approach strokes gained guys vs the best putting strokes gained.  I wonder who intersects as great at both.  
 

think of this. The closer you hit it on approach the less opportunity to gain strokes stats wise putting.  A 3 ft putt won’t gain as many strokes on the field as a 12 ft putt made will.  Someone lights out at Distance and approach can show a false negative in putting potentially if he doesn’t make 100 %.  And nobody does that.  While the guy making 20 ft bombs all over with no 3 putts  won’t show to be anything but a great putter.  

[pinhigh27]

It’s not a false negative it’s a representation of how they did vs how their peer would be expected to do in the same situation. They’re not going to be negative if they’re not 100%  unless they literally hit it to 2 feet on every hole for a whole round which obviously no one has done  

 

you can certainly win without a hot putter. Making a bunch of putts from 50 yard wedge approaches isn’t a hot putter. 
 

The difference between being a great approach player and a poor one can be a few feet over the course of a season on average so it’s not like the amazing approach players also don’t have opportunities to be tremendous putters from a statistical standpoint 

[bladehunter]

20 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

It’s not a false negative it’s a representation of how they did vs how their peer would be expected to do in the same situation. They’re not going to be negative if they’re not 100%  unless they literally hit it to 2 feet on every hole for a whole round which obviously no one has done  

 

you can certainly win without a hot putter. Making a bunch of putts from 50 yard wedge approaches isn’t a hot putter. 
 

The difference between being a great approach player and a poor one can be a few feet over the course of a season on average so it’s not like the amazing approach players also don’t have opportunities to be tremendous putters from a statistical standpoint 

I don’t mean literally negative strokes gained. I just mean showing as a less than putter because you hit it closer. 
 

 

look. I’m not advocating for penalizing long guys.  What I’m saying it’s that now everyone is long enough.  I’ll Ike to see it where not everyone is long enough.  Give the real advantage back to the truly long player.  We’d see a dominant group again.  

[bubbagump]

12 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I don’t mean literally negative strokes gained. I just mean showing as a less than putter because you hit it closer. 
 

 

look. I’m not advocating for penalizing long guys.  What I’m saying it’s that now everyone is long enough.  I’ll Ike to see it where not everyone is long enough.  Give the real advantage back to the truly long player.  We’d see a dominant group again.  

 

Did that advantage ever leave?  Sounds like there is some confusion on players ability and length, and what they each provide.

Edited October 19, 2020 by bubbagump

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

Did that advantage ever leave?  Sounds like there is some confusion on players ability and length, and what they each provide.

Sure it has.  To a degree.  Easy example is tiger pre 2001 vs the field.     Now look at Bryson or Wolff etc today vs the field.  The field isn’t nearly as far behind.    And it’s not due to any outing except the modern ball and driver.    
 

also been covered at-nauseam is the FACT that 60-75 year old ams hit it same or much farther than whne they were 35-50 . Stats back it up.     When 300-310 average was a big hitters number  the advantage was apparent.  Go watch the 97 masters.  Blind person can hear the difference.  

[bubbagump]

2 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Sure it has.  To a degree.  Easy example is tiger pre 2001 vs the field.     Now look at Bryson or Wolff etc today vs the field.  The field isn’t nearly as far behind.    And it’s not due to any outing except the modern ball and driver.    
 

also been covered at-nauseam is the FACT that 60-75 year old ams hit it same or much farther than whne they were 35-50 . Stats back it up.     When 300-310 average was a big hitters number  the advantage was apparent.  Go watch the 97 masters.  Blind person can hear the difference.  

 

Its understood why distance has gone up, however those longer players are still longer and retain their advantage, even if it has diminished to a degree: DJ will always be longer than Zach Johnson.  Distance is an advantage, always will be however what you do with it depends on the player.      

 

The point I was referring to is that, even though a dude like Luke List places high on the distance list, nobody is going to confuse him as a better player overall than Rickie Fowler because he averages 15 yards more.  The gaps have narrowed, and most everybody on the tour can move it....however talent still usually is the great equalizer.  

[pinhigh27]

20 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

also been covered at-nauseam is the FACT that 60-75 year old ams hit it same or much farther than whne they were 35-50

Because we understand how the ball flies now and everyone isn’t hitting spinny shots . This isn’t a problem, it’s because of information. And your quote is a bit exaggerated, I doubt many 75 yr olds are hitting it as far as they did when they were 50

 

The other post in this thread was someone bemoaning their new 9i going as far as their 7i 30 yr ago, when in reality the lofts are probably same. 
 

I saw a trackman shot of a 16 yr old kid swinging his 6 iron 105 yesterday, how exactly does someone explain that by anything besides swing instruction and athleticism among golfers improving 

[bladehunter]

4 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

Its understood why distance has gone up, however those longer players are still longer and retain their advantage, even if it has diminished to a degree: DJ will always be longer than Zach Johnson.  Distance is an advantage, always will be however what you do with it depends on the player.      

 

The point I was referring to is that, even though a dude like Luke List places high on the distance list, nobody is going to confuse him as a better player overall than Rickie Fowler because he averages 15 yards more.  The gaps have narrowed, and most everybody on the tour can move it....however talent still usually is the great equalizer.  

Right.  We’re saying the same thing.  I simply prefer the game with less of the parity that modern tech brings.  

[bubbagump]

7 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Because we understand how the ball flies now and everyone isn’t hitting spinny shots . This isn’t a problem, it’s because of information. And your quote is a bit exaggerated, I doubt many 75 yr olds are hitting it as far as they did when they were 50

 

The other post in this thread was someone bemoaning their new 9i going as far as their 7i 30 yr ago, when in reality the lofts are probably same. 
 

I saw a trackman shot of a 16 yr old kid swinging his 6 iron 105 yesterday, how exactly does someone explain that by anything besides swing instruction and athleticism among golfers improving 

 

This is another large piece of the puzzle that seems to get ignored.  The comparisons of fields from 1997 etc, to today just dont really hold up.  The sheer quantity of young, powerful players now is just not a comparison to then.  Advancement in tech plays its part, but the speed young golfers are blessed with naturally, and hone from there is just different.   

 

Weve seen this advancement in most every single sport.  

Edited October 19, 2020 by bubbagump