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

[Fairway14]

On 10/19/2020 at 6:29 AM, bladehunter said:

 

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

The pushback to "rolling back the ball or other equipment" is because it's a stupid idea. In other words, it is irrelevant if 60 years ago a Tour pro hit a 6-iron into a par 4 at August and 30 years ago the Tour pro (s) hit an 8-iron into that same par 4 and last year the Tour pro (s) hit a wedge into that par 4. As the decades pass by equipment improves and Tour pros strike longer distance shots, and this is not a problem.

[Titleist99]

15 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

The pushback to "rolling back the ball or other equipment" is because it's a stupid idea. In other words, it is irrelevant if 60 years ago a Tour pro hit a 6-iron into a par 4 at August and 30 years ago the Tour pro (s) hit an 8-iron into that same par 4 and last year the Tour pro (s) hit a wedge into that par 4. As the decades pass by equipment improves and Tour pros strike longer distance shots, and this is not a problem.

Dude......I think they want to see the game Bobby Jones played.....Personally I love the modern game.

[doobz]

On 10/13/2020 at 8:52 PM, Holy Moses said:

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.

It’s incredible this thread even progressed past this when the first reply nailed it.

 

To put it as simply as possible, being long is the skill with the least variance. DJ, Bryson, Finau, etc... are never showing up to a tournament and not having their length. Maybe a cold putter or a bad ball striking day but they’re always going to hit it farther than everyone and that advantage never goes away. This in turn gives them more margin for error and means when the other parts of the game show up they win and win big.

 

This is not exclusive to pros either, more distance simply gives you more opportunities to go low and the data shows this very clearly. 

 

[Fairway14]

5 hours ago, doobz said:

 

 

This is not exclusive to pros either, more distance simply gives you more opportunities to go low and the data shows this very clearly. 

 

 

Yes, the "data" from "strokes gained"  is applicable to Tour players, all of whom have sensational short games.

For the amateur game, where excellent short game skills are rare, added distance is irrelevant to scoring.

[bladehunter]

9 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

The pushback to "rolling back the ball or other equipment" is because it's a stupid idea. In other words, it is irrelevant if 60 years ago a Tour pro hit a 6-iron into a par 4 at August and 30 years ago the Tour pro (s) hit an 8-iron into that same par 4 and last year the Tour pro (s) hit a wedge into that par 4. As the decades pass by equipment improves and Tour pros strike longer distance shots, and this is not a problem.

Lol.  I wondered how long it would take for the “ because I said so “ argument to come out.  Bravo.  

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Yes, the "data" from "strokes gained"  is applicable to Tour players, all of whom have sensational short games.

For the amateur game, where excellent short game skills are rare, added distance is irrelevant to scoring.

I’m sorry. What?  Added distance is irrelevant to scoring ???????

 

 

lets let that sink in a bit.  Simmer in its glory.  

[jvincent]

7 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

I’m sorry. What?  Added distance is irrelevant to scoring ???????

 

 

lets let that sink in a bit.  Simmer in its glory.  

 

Remember the source.

 

He also believes that we should be playing with fewer clubs because it will make us better.

[Fairway14]

9 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Lol.  I wondered how long it would take for the “ because I said so “ argument to come out.  Bravo.  

 

Why is it a problem if Tour pros are hitting less club into greens than years past ?

Why is it a problem if winning scores on Tour are lower than years past ?

Players striking longer shots and, or, shooting lower scores is nothing new, it's been happening for 100 years.

[bladehunter]

2 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Why is it a problem if Tour pros are hitting less club into greens than years past ?

Why is it a problem if winning scores on Tour are lower than years past ?

Players striking longer shots and, or, shooting lower scores is nothing new, it's been happening for 100 years.

I haven’t mentioned lower scores. Not one time.  

[Titleist99]

Having more opportunities do not automatically equate to more wins and more financial gains on the PGATOUR. Taking advantage of your opportunities does though. As I stated before these touring Pros today have more wedges in but can't hit a green from 120 yards and if they do, they're putting from thirty feet.

 

I'd take Tiger Woods in his prime from 160 yards rather than a modern Pro from 90. Then there's the fact that they must do it on the back nine on Sunday.....

[Holy Moses]

8 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Having more opportunities do not automatically equate to more wins and more financial gains on the PGATOUR. Taking advantage of your opportunities does though. As I stated before these touring Pros today have more wedges in but can't hit a green from 120 yards and if they do, they're putting from thirty feet.

 

I'd take Tiger Woods in his prime from 160 yards rather than a modern Pro from 90. Then there's the fact that they must do it on the back nine on Sunday.....

No. 

[doobz]

4 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Yes, the "data" from "strokes gained"  is applicable to Tour players, all of whom have sensational short games.

For the amateur game, where excellent short game skills are rare, added distance is irrelevant to scoring.

This is simply not true.

[bladehunter]

44 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Having more opportunities do not automatically equate to more wins and more financial gains on the PGATOUR. Taking advantage of your opportunities does though. As I stated before these touring Pros today have more wedges in but can't hit a green from 120 yards and if they do, they're putting from thirty feet.

 

I'd take Tiger Woods in his prime from 160 yards rather than a modern Pro from 90. Then there's the fact that they must do it on the back nine on Sunday.....

I agree with you.  And that’s why I’d like to see those guys get weeded out with a rollback so that maybe another ballstriker would step forward.  
 

the issue is that statistically  you’re going to score better by hitting a lot of poor wedges in compared to longer clubs  that you may on average hit closer relative to the rest of the field.  You have to be a tiger like putter to win that way now.  If the tee ball is pulled back.  That idea leaves the discussion since hitting wedge into every green goes away.  

[Fairway14]

11 minutes ago, doobz said:

This is simply not true.

 

It's been true for the decades I've played and watched golf. For example in my my regular skins game group of 16 to 24 players, handicaps ranging from plus 3 to about a 9 , the longest hitters rarely shoot the lowest 18 hole scores and, or, win the most skins.

I understand there is a common misconception that that the player with an 8-iron into a green has a "significant advantage" over the player swinging 6-iron. On Tour where every player in the field has a sensational short game that may be true. But for amateur play the longest hitter often has a weak short game, so any theoretical "advantage" he gained from extra distance is negated.

[dmecca2]

8 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

It's been true for the decades I've played and watched golf. For example in my my regular skins game group of 16 to 24 players, handicaps ranging from plus 3 to about a 9 , the longest hitters rarely shoot the lowest 18 hole scores and, or, win the most skins.

I understand there is a common misconception that that the player with an 8-iron into a green has a "significant advantage" over the player swinging 6-iron. On Tour where every player in the field has a sensational short game that may be true. But for amateur play the longest hitter often has a weak short game, so any theoretical "advantage" he gained from extra distance is negated.

You're out of your league. Your cause and effect argument is just plain incorrect. These guys don't have a bad short game because they are long. They have a bad short game because they have a bad short game. Whether it's lack of practice or whatever, the distance they are gaining off the tee is not causing them to be worse in another area. 

 

Take those same players and subtract 20 yards from their drives. They will shoot worse. Period. 

[bubbagump]

17 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

It's been true for the decades I've played and watched golf. For example in my my regular skins game group of 16 to 24 players, handicaps ranging from plus 3 to about a 9 , the longest hitters rarely shoot the lowest 18 hole scores and, or, win the most skins.

I understand there is a common misconception that that the player with an 8-iron into a green has a "significant advantage" over the player swinging 6-iron. On Tour where every player in the field has a sensational short game that may be true. But for amateur play the longest hitter often has a weak short game, so any theoretical "advantage" he gained from extra distance is negated.

 2020 through the TOUR Championship:

 

#1 from 75-100: Justin Rose 10' and TOUR average 17' 7

#1 from 100-125: Josh Teater at just under 15' and TOUR average: just under 20'

#1 from 125-150: Justin Thomas 18' 7 and TOUR average: 23'

#1 from 150-175: Michael Gellerman 23' and TOUR average: 27' 9

 

The advantages between wedges to 6 irons aren't big as some seem to think when dealing with stud ball strikers on the PGAT.  So your'e dealing with on average 10' of difference in proximity from a dude being inside 100 as opposed to at 175.  To me, the main focus here would still be putting ability to set guys apart.  

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by bubbagump

[Holy Moses]

11 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

 2020 through the TOUR Championship:

 

#1 from 75-100: Justin Rose 10' and TOUR average 17' 7

#1 from 100-125: Josh Teater at just under 15' and TOUR average: just under 20'

#1 from 125-150: Justin Thomas 18' 7 and TOUR average: 23'

#1 from 150-175: Michael Gellerman 23' and TOUR average: 27' 9

 

The advantages between wedges to 6 irons aren't big as some seem to think when dealing with stud ball strikers on the PGAT.  So your'e dealing with on average 10' of difference in proximity from a dude being inside 100 as opposed to at 175.  To me, the main focus here would still be putting ability to set guys apart.  

 

 

 

When all the players are tightly grouped in scoring, the difference between an average and a great ball striker is hugely important. 5-10’ feet closer or farther on the greens is everything. 

[bubbagump]

21 minutes ago, Holy Moses said:

When all the players are tightly grouped in scoring, the difference between an average and a great ball striker is hugely important. 5-10’ feet closer or farther on the greens is everything. 

Of course 5-10' matters in general, but I would hardly say its "everything".  Check the putting stats in addition to the proximity to hole approaches and it tells a picture to where really no one stat really reigns supreme.   The names are all over the place.  

 

Advantages exist in both length, and putting ability....always has, but neither is going to dominate on its own.  

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by bubbagump

[Titleist99]

14 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

The pushback to "rolling back the ball or other equipment" is because it's a stupid idea. In other words, it is irrelevant if 60 years ago a Tour pro hit a 6-iron into a par 4 at August and 30 years ago the Tour pro (s) hit an 8-iron into that same par 4 and last year the Tour pro (s) hit a wedge into that par 4. As the decades pass by equipment improves and Tour pros strike longer distance shots, and this is not a problem.

The rollback push is a solution looking for a problem......Golf has never been in a better place.

[Fairway14]

43 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

 Whether it's lack of practice or whatever, the distance they are gaining off the tee is not causing them to be worse in another area. 

 

 

 

Traditionally,  long hitters tend to either not learn or practice effective short game technique. Or, the full-on swing style they use for long clubs is not conducive to playing shorter clubs. 

Put another way, most truly good scoring players know that striving for maximum shot distance with long clubs will likely harm the swing for the shorter clubs within the bag. 

[Fairway14]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

The rollback push is a solution looking for a problem......Golf has never been in a better place.

 

Agreed.

[Fairway14]

49 minutes ago, bubbagump said:

   To me, the main focus here would still be putting ability to set guys apart.  

 

 

 

 

Absolutely correct. Also, any Tour player when asked "would you rather gain 20 yards off the tee or make more putts"? every single player would reply "make more putts".

[dmecca2]

44 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Traditionally,  long hitters tend to either not learn or practice effective short game technique. Or, the full-on swing style they use for long clubs is not conducive to playing shorter clubs. 

Put another way, most truly good scoring players know that striving for maximum shot distance with long clubs will likely harm the swing for the shorter clubs within the bag. 

It's like you're arriving at the correct answer, but doing the wrong math to get there. I agree we don't need a rollback and golf is currently in a good place, but I don't believe the statistics will show that the longest hitters are worse into the greens. 

[Fairway14]

8 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

 but I don't believe the statistics will show that the longest hitters are worse into the greens. 

Please forget about PGA Tour golf, where every player with a current Tour card is extremely high skilled at every aspect of the game.

The "strokes gained" or any other data used to analyze PGA Tour play is not relevant to amateur play.

For amateur play long hitters are often deficient at short iron, wedges, green side pitching-chipping ,bunker play, putting etc...

 

[dmecca2]

3 minutes ago, Fairway14 said:

Please forget about PGA Tour golf, where every player with a current Tour card is extremely high skilled at every aspect of the game.

The "strokes gained" or any other data used to analyze PGA Tour play is not relevant to amateur play.

For amateur play long hitters are often deficient at short iron, wedges, green side pitching-chipping ,bunker play, putting etc...

 

And this is why I say you are out of your league. What you see in your extremely small sample size of a league does not reflect what is actually happening in the world. The argument of "in my league I see this, so this must be true for all," is not a valid argument. 

[nsxguy]

7 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Yes, the "data" from "strokes gained"  is applicable to Tour players, all of whom have sensational short games.

For the amateur game, where excellent short game skills are rare, added distance is irrelevant to scoring.

 

If ALL Tour players had sensational short games then NONE of them would.

 

And more distance is irrelevant to amateurs with excellent short games ? Sorry, but that is ridiculous.

[Fairway14]

2 minutes ago, dmecca2 said:

And this is why I say you are out of your league. What you see in your extremely small sample size of a league does not reflect what is actually happening in the world. The argument of "in my league I see this, so this must be true for all," is not a valid argument. 

 

I've never played "League golf". Here in California where there is year round golf I am not sure there are Leagues.

But for decades I've watched Tour players and amateurs of all skill levels play golf courses.

At every skill level the long bomber who does not get the ball up and down from green side scores poorly. That is how golf has been for the past 100 years and will likely be so for the next 100 years.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Fairway14 said:

 

Absolutely correct. Also, any Tour player when asked "would you rather gain 20 yards off the tee or make more putts"? every single player would reply "make more putts".

 

That's interesting. I wonder if it's true.

 

I would think the gaining 20 yards off the tee would be the choice as if they're 20 yards less to every hole they will be closer to the hole AND make more putts.

 

But I get you dismiss "proximity" to the hole and love to take the contrarian POV - kinda sorta makes you think you're the smartest guy in the room,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Fairway14]

5 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

If ALL Tour players had sensational short games then NONE of them would.

 

And more distance is irrelevant to amateurs with excellent short games ? Sorry, but that is ridiculous.

 

Yes, without a sensational short game a player shoots above par and loses his/her Tour card. Around the world several hundred people have sensational short games but there are millions of people playing golf.

 

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

That's interesting. I wonder if it's true.

 

I would think the gaining 20 yards off the tee would be the choice as if they're 20 yards less to every hole they will be closer to the hole AND make more putts.

 

But I get you dismiss "proximity" to the hole and love to take the contrarian POV - kinda sorta makes you think you're the smartest guy in the room,,,,,,,,,,,,

I agree. I’d take make more putts in an instant.  20 yards distance is nothing.  Dofference from 8 iron to wedge. Whoopie.  You’d have to up it to a gauranteed 40 in my opinion to not want the putter option.  More putts made takes pressure off it all.