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

[bladehunter]

2 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 

I have trackman data somewhere from 3 years ago at age 37 showing me swinging a mp5 6 iron 102 during a good stretch of a fitting session.  It wasn’t from instructor or planned. I hadn’t ever been on the machine with an iron before. Nor  did Or do I have a speed instructor.  That’s not as rare as you think.   You just now have athletes that would have in the past choosen other sports playing golf.  
 

my simplest point is that today’s club helps the slower guy way more than the fast  guy.   The fast guy can play with anything.  The slow guy “needs” the tech.  

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

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.  

Now I’ll preface this by saying. I’ve asked this several times. It never gets answered.  And it’s not a trick.  It’s a genuine curiosity of mine.  So don’t take this as anything but a follow up to your point above.  
 

if it makes no real difference ..... why is there such a huge pushback to the idea of a rollback ? 

[bubbagump]

Just now, bladehunter said:

Now I’ll preface this by saying. I’ve asked this several times. It never gets answered.  And it’s not a trick.  It’s a genuine curiosity of mine.  So don’t take this as anything but a follow up to your point above.  
 

if it makes no real difference ..... why is there such a huge pushback to the idea of a rollback ? 

I'm not pushing back against one, or for one.  I just don't think there is really a "problem" that requires sweeping action, and should there be a roll back I don't think there will be a mass shakeup or effect.   

[bladehunter]

Just now, bubbagump said:

I'm not pushing back against one, or for one.  I just don't think there is really a "problem" that requires sweeping action, and should there be a roll back I don't think there will be a mass shakeup or effect.   

Reasonable enough.  Didn’t mean to imply that you personally were pushing back.  
 

But no doubt plenty are , and for whatever reason that question doesn’t get touched .  I’d just like for someone to own the difference and the preference to stay with the longer - higher - straighter equipment.  Instead of hiding behind the idea that it’s al in the fitness of New pros etc.  it can’t be both. 

[oikos1]

12 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

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.  

That's exactly what Fitzpatrick was whining about recently.

 

Distance, over time, has always won out.  As long as it's within the rules, have at it.  The majority actually enjoy seeing the long ball, especially when it's unexpected.

[bubbagump]

1 minute ago, bladehunter said:

Reasonable enough.  Didn’t mean to imply that you personally were pushing back.  
 

But no doubt plenty are , and for whatever reason that question doesn’t get touched .  I’d just like for someone to own the difference and the preference to stay with the longer - higher - straighter equipment.  Instead of hiding behind the idea that it’s al in the fitness of New pros etc.  it can’t be both. 

 

To me, even with the improved equipment.....the same driver in DJs hands compared to Chez Reavie's is going to do very different things.  Sure the field has crept closer, but there is simply no confusing naturally gifted length regardless.  The field is ALL long in the PGA Tour (naturally, aided by equipment or whatever), that plays out weekly but the true distance guys always are a level above, and always have that advantage.

 

To me, that's like saying Mike Stanton and Dee Gordon are one in the same because they can both have power to leave the yard.  

[pinhigh27]

19 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

.  it can’t be both

Why can’t it be both? Yes the equipment is better for distance but instruction and fitness have improved . Guys are aware of the importance of distance and every player on tour besides Fitzpatrick apparently is noticing. 
 

it’s a multifactorial issue, I don’t understand trying to distill it down to one thing 

Edited October 19, 2020 by pinhigh27

[NRJyzr]

1 hour 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.    
 

 

I generally agree with you, BH, but I don't think it's the ball nearly as much as it's the clubs.  I've been around long enough that I remember digging through the data of the early ball tests, when the Tour Accuracy and Pro V1 came out, and were compared to wound balls (as well as the existing Stratas and Precepts).  And, I've played wound balls myself, including several holes with one just a week ago, using my modern bag.

 

You can tweak your equipment to counter the wound ball characteristics.  It's not ideal, but it doesn't leave the old ball 20-30 yds shorter, as some would have us believe.  

 

/end soapbox    🙂

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by NRJyzr

[NRJyzr]

49 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

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

 

Reduce driver clubhead MOI.  Tee game skill is brought back into the game.

 

Anyone who's played an original SLDR could speak to that.  🙂

 

 

[bladehunter]

3 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

I generally agree with you, BH, but I don't think it's the ball nearly as much as it's the clubs.  I've been around long enough that I remember digging through the data of the early ball tests, when the Tour Accuracy and Pro V1 came out, and were compared to wound balls.  And, I've played wound balls myself, including several holes with one just a week ago, using my modern bag.

 

You can tweak your equipment to counter the wound ball characteristics.  It's not ideal, but it doesn't leave the old ball 20-30 yds shorter, as some would have us believe.  

 

/end soapbox    🙂

 

Oh I actually agree.  Especially with less than driver. 

[bladehunter]

11 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Why can’t it be both? Yes the equipment is better for distance but instruction and fitness have improved . Guys are aware of the importance of distance and every player on tour besides Fitzpatrick apparently is noticing. 
 

it’s a multifactorial issue, I don’t understand trying to distill it down to one thing 

I suppose poor choice of words by me.  It is both to a degree At the pro level.  .  I guess I’m trying to combat the anti rollback ideal that is always at odds with itself on the am side.  The “ it makes no difference ....bbbbut don’t take my distance away “ argument.  

[bladehunter]

26 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 

To me, even with the improved equipment.....the same driver in DJs hands compared to Chez Reavie's is going to do very different things.  Sure the field has crept closer, but there is simply no confusing naturally gifted length regardless.  The field is ALL long in the PGA Tour (naturally, aided by equipment or whatever), that plays out weekly but the true distance guys always are a level above, and always have that advantage.

 

To me, that's like saying Mike Stanton and Dee Gordon are one in the same because they can both have power to leave the yard.  

Still true as a whole.  But you and I both know that DJ could win a lot more or it were rolled back .  His scores don’t change much whne you roll him back from LW to 8 iron.  But whne you take Reavie from pw to 6 iron he’s going to Struggle to make a living.  

[MUNIGRIT]

Pretty much everyone on tour that regularly competes is long. You won't last long out there hitting it Colt Knost Jon Curran length.

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

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.  

Of course you're right....The guys today can't hit a green from 100 yards and if they do they're 30 feet from the hole. Take Cameron Champ for instance, guy hits it a mile and has a grand total of two wins for his career. Once he learn how to putt....LOOK OUT!

 

The game is much more complicated than he who hits it further wins....

[Titleist99]

52 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Still true as a whole.  But you and I both know that DJ could win a lot more or it were rolled back .  His scores don’t change much whne you roll him back from LW to 8 iron.  But whne you take Reavie from pw to 6 iron he’s going to Struggle to make a living.  

And that's why most touring Pros are not in favor of a roll back. A roll back would eventually eliminate half the current tour members and the tour will consist of players hitting it the same distance eventually....IMO

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

And that's why most touring Pros are not in favor of a roll back. A roll back would eventually eliminate half the current tour members and the tour will consist of players hitting it the same distance eventually....IMO

Finally.  You get what I’ve been trying to say.  🤦‍♂️ Which I realize is my communication issue.    Now apply that same exact logic to the local am  tournament schedule.  And you now see my personal gripe as well. 

[OrangeGravy]

1 hour ago, bubbagump said:

 

To me, even with the improved equipment.....the same driver in DJs hands compared to Chez Reavie's is going to do very different things.  Sure the field has crept closer, but there is simply no confusing naturally gifted length regardless.  The field is ALL long in the PGA Tour (naturally, aided by equipment or whatever), that plays out weekly but the true distance guys always are a level above, and always have that advantage.

 

To me, that's like saying Mike Stanton and Dee Gordon are one in the same because they can both have power to leave the yard.  

I think it's more like the Dee Gordon's of the world hitting 15-25 a year while the Stanton's still hit 40+

[bubbagump]

9 minutes ago, OrangeGravy said:

I think it's more like the Dee Gordon's of the world hitting 15-25 a year while the Stanton's still hit 40+

 

Exactly, and then using Dee Gordon hitting 15-25 a year as the leading example for needing to extend the field.  

[mallrat]

10 hours 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 

Isn’t the average 50 yard wedge 12-15 ft on tour? It’s not like everyone is stuffing wedges 3-5 ft every time. 12-15 ft from 50 vs 20 from 100 turns into a hot putter race.

[phizzy30]

9 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Of course you're right....The guys today can't hit a green from 100 yards and if they do they're 30 feet from the hole. Take Cameron Champ for instance, guy hits it a mile and has a grand total of two wins for his career. Once he learn how to putt....LOOK OUT!

 

The game is much more complicated than he who hits it further wins....

Cam Champ has only been on the PGA tour for a few years now.  He's still a young man and can develop into a better putter over time.  Let's not go lump him with the likes of Hank Kuehne who's never won a tournament but was considered one of the longest hitters on tour back in the day. 

[phizzy30]

Doing work in the gym as I like to call it is a huge factor in why these guys on tour hit it far not just equipment.  I will use myself and my buddy who I will call "Mike" on the Mackenzie tour who I train for example.  When I played high school varsity and college golf for a year, I could get it out there maybe 285ish.  After I put on 10 pounds and got significantly stronger and more flexible, I could generate up to 122 mph ss starting from my early 20's.  It's not until 5 years ago I lost a little bit of ss due to my health issues and age.  "Mike" came to me 3 years ago at 6'1, 150 wanting length off the tee so he could be more competitive on tour.  It took awhile but I got him to 170 lbs., increasing distance from 290 to 310.  So yes, fitness plays a bigger role than people like to think. 

[dubbelbogey]

11 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

Reduce driver clubhead MOI.  Tee game skill is brought back into the game.

 

Anyone who's played an original SLDR could speak to that.

I usually agree with most of your opinions, but in this case I think I'm the outlier. I just never really experienced the "bad behavior" often attributed to the SLDR. Played it for years and only switched from it because it was "claimed" from my bag by a relative. Playing what is supposedly a much more forgiving driver now, and I don't really notice much difference in my own driving stats.

 

I'm definitely not saying the SLDR is for everyone - clearly the general consensus is that it's not. But maybe for some swing types, it can be quite reliable.

 

But just to bring the original thread back into this, I think distance is like speed to other sports. It's more inherent in the participant than any equipment they might have. Some guys have great speed. Some have great hands. Some have unbreakable mental strength. The legends have a great mix of all three. The journeymen usually have a significant weakness in at least one.

Edited October 20, 2020 by dubbelbogey

[NRJyzr]

29 minutes ago, dubbelbogey said:

I usually agree with most of your opinions, but in this case I think I'm the outlier. I just never really experienced the "bad behavior" often attributed to the SLDR. Played it for years and only switched from it because it was "claimed" from my bag by a relative. Playing what is supposedly a much more forgiving driver now, and I don't really notice much difference in my own driving stats.

 

I'm definitely not saying the SLDR is for everyone - clearly the general consensus is that it's not. But maybe for some swing types, it can be quite reliable.

 

But just to bring the original thread back into this, I think distance is like speed to other sports. It's more inherent in the participant than any equipment they might have. Some guys have great speed. Some have great hands. Some have unbreakable mental strength. The legends have a great mix of all three. The journeymen usually have a significant weakness in at least one.

 

Maybe you have more tee game skill than you might think?  🙂

 

[grm24]

12 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Of course you're right....The guys today can't hit a green from 100 yards and if they do they're 30 feet from the hole. Take Cameron Champ for instance, guy hits it a mile and has a grand total of two wins for his career. Once he learn how to putt....LOOK OUT!

 

The game is much more complicated than he who hits it further wins....

Cameron Champ has been on the PGA Tour for 2 years and has 2 wins. Better win total than many players who have played on tour the last two years.

[bladehunter]

8 hours ago, grm24 said:

Cameron Champ has been on the PGA Tour for 2 years and has 2 wins. Better win total than many players who have played on tour the last two years.

Yes but .... both were Weak field  events.  He and Finau are neck and neck in my opinion. Both need to learn to putt and a wedge game.   And I like both of them as people.    What people are saying is the hype and coverage doesn’t match the results. 

[Titleist99]

17 hours ago, grm24 said:

Cameron Champ has been on the PGA Tour for 2 years and has 2 wins. Better win total than many players who have played on tour the last two years.

My point was mainly that distance do not automatically make you a prolific winner. Take Jason Kokrak, he's pretty long yet his recent win is his first in ten years.

 

I'm starting to believe that anything over 300 yards off the tee will bring you diminished returns. Loss of game and premature injuries to name a few...

[MUNIGRIT]

20 hours ago, dubbelbogey said:

I usually agree with most of your opinions, but in this case I think I'm the outlier. I just never really experienced the "bad behavior" often attributed to the SLDR. Played it for years and only switched from it because it was "claimed" from my bag by a relative. Playing what is supposedly a much more forgiving driver now, and I don't really notice much difference in my own driving stats.

 

I'm definitely not saying the SLDR is for everyone - clearly the general consensus is that it's not. But maybe for some swing types, it can be quite reliable.

 

But just to bring the original thread back into this, I think distance is like speed to other sports. It's more inherent in the participant than any equipment they might have. Some guys have great speed. Some have great hands. Some have unbreakable mental strength. The legends have a great mix of all three. The journeymen usually have a significant weakness in at least one.

I just replaced the SLDR with a Ping G410. I wasn't expecting it to be much different but the ball does not seem to fly off line as much as that SLDR did. I have only played 1 rpund with new driver but it was my best driving round in a long time.

[Man_O_War]

putting ..best putting wins

[BNGL]

On 10/13/2020 at 11:43 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

 

 

I think it’s just an exciting talking point, now whenever Rory or whomever is on a par 5 we have two graphics on the screen showing ball speed and carry and announcers raving about it...yes it is impressive, but that’s not all of the game. 

What I have told some juniors I’ve helped out in the past is distance a luxury but not a necessity, all it does is increase your margin for error in my opinion. I still believe that, but I’d be more inclined to take a junior player and maybe say learn to hit it far now control it later. Is that right or wrong? I don’t know. 

 

As you progress in the game of golf, your focus gets smaller and smaller. Now there’s gunna be days, events even, where Rory will best the field because he’s driving it well (he’s that good with driver. I’ve always said and believed he’s one of the few that can win without a great putter because he’s exceptional off the tee he’s just gunna have so many more opportunities sometimes). But still on average a PGA Tour winner is making around 100 feet of putts per round (I don’t have concrete data, but thats a number I learned from an instructor way back). That’s a lot of putts being holed. And for every ball I’d see hit on the range at Medalist by a tour player I’d see 20 more hit on the practice green, distance just makes things easier in my opinion. 
 

As far as Bryson goes, he’s doing something his own way and it seems to be working for him. I think time will tell whether his methods are truly successful and lasting, I think they could be but I’m also cognizant that it could totally blow up as well.

[Ferguson]

On 10/15/2020 at 6:39 PM, Hawkeye77 said:

 

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

 

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

 

 

This post eloquently captures the thread's true meaning.