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

[pinhigh27]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

The bomb and gouge crowd would disagree  with you. Hit it as far as you can and go find it.....closer is better. Quite illogical to me but each to his own.

It’s within reason. Obviously Bryson would have a higher strokes gained driving than a pro long driver. It’s about hitting it long while being relatively accurate. 320 @60 percent fairway is better than 280 @ 70 percent 

[llewol007]

1 minute ago, Titleist99 said:

The bomb and gouge crowd would disagree  with you. Hit it as far as you can and go find it.....closer is better. Quite illogical to me but each to his own.

Yes, it is fun to watch though, and if Bryson has the game to do it, there is nothing wrong with it. You can see now how other players are testing longer drivers to see what distance they are picking up. Im wondering if Augusta will be set up any different, I doubt it. Cant wait to watch Tiger win his next Green Jacket. 😅

[Titleist99]

6 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Yes and he pretty much does unless it brings in unnecessary risk or isn’t worth it. vast majority of the time it is worth it. Nothing is an absolute , no one is saying he’s going to hit it 14/14 times at every single course 
 

 

Well, you do have a group on this fine board that says it is an absolute "further is better" and who ever disagree with them is a troll.....

[pinhigh27]

5 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Well, you do have a group on this fine board that says it is an absolute "further is better" and who ever disagree with them is a troll.....

No, I haven’t seen one person say that. If you have a theoretical hole where at 300 yards that narrows to 20 yards with OB or hazard on both sides, basically everyone is going to advocate laying up unless you can comfortably carry it to where it gets wider. 
 

no one has made a hard and fast longer is always better argument. It just generally is better. 

[nsxguy]

13 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Sure. And I agree with all that.   But that’s what I’ve screamed on all of these distance threads.  That a rollback will not hurt the long guy. It will only help that advantage.  For some reason when I say it it’s crazy talk.  Lol. 
 
 

 

3 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I think my biggest gripe is the idea that it’s a universal truth.  I don’t believe in many universal truths about anything.  
 

I think the stats say that if you use length to be closer everytime , you’ll be more consistent.   Which is likely true over a long period. But -  it can’t accurately tell you if it means you’ll win more.  As in the risk taking may take you out of a win or two , but at the same time cause more top 10s.  There’s no real way to say one way or another.  Take Phil Mickelson for example.  If he plays a safer tee  game , does he win more ?  I personally say yes.  Even if it’s just one or two .  And that’s the idea. Winning.  Not being a journeyman cash register.  They all make enough $ to live.  So it’s really a moot point if you’re  comparing them to the populace . 
 

 

I just don’t believe that there’s a measurable difference from 130-50 yards.  

 

Actually, what's kinda "crazy talk" is you telling us how proficient you are from 90-75-50-40 but you don't know whether your proximity to the hole is better (than from 120).  

 

You agree that length is an advantage but admit you don't know whether you're better off from the 120 you play to than if you got to the "90 & under" yardages yet you argue against things that other HAVE tried.

 

You not being ABLE to play safely to those yardages is a completely different issue even though your length is STILL an advantage.

 

Now I'll be the first to agree that stats don't always tell you everything AND one can easily under- or over-estimate what the stats actually mean but some are pretty clear. Such as a pitcher's batting average (you ?) against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd time through the lineup.

 

I've never really paid attention to that stat but is there ANY pitcher whose BA against better the 3rd time through vs. the 2nd ? or the 2nd time through than the 1st ? The implication is pretty obvious, no ?  

 

You don't believe the difference is measurable from closer in ? How about jvincent's stats earlier in the thread ? Or is it "only a few feet" ?

 

 https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1772800-distance-wins-and-the-tour-am-i-way-off/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-23226132

 

 

 

[Titleist99]

14 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

It’s within reason. Obviously Bryson would have a higher strokes gained driving than a pro long driver. It’s about hitting it long while being relatively accurate. 320 @60 percent fairway is better than 280 @ 70 percent 

Agreed......As 300 in the fairway is better than 320 in the rough blocked out by trees. Farther is sometimes better but it's not an absolute. IMO Some find my concept wrong, but it make sense to me.

[jvincent]

30 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

The bomb and gouge crowd would disagree  with you. Hit it as far as you can and go find it.....closer is better. Quite illogical to me but each to his own.

 

Again, if you have read the Broadie book he very clearly states that closer is better IF it doesn't bring a hazard into play. Then the idea is to get as close to the hazard as possible without going in.

[ThinkingPlus]

20 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

The bomb and gouge crowd would disagree  with you. Hit it as far as you can and go find it.....closer is better. Quite illogical to me but each to his own.

See that is where you are wrong.  Effective penalty areas matter within a bomb and gouge strategy.  Anything that adds enough strokes to offset the lower strokes from being closer must be respected which is why Bryson doesn't always bomb it with driver.  Water, thick trees, shrubs, OB, deep bunkers,, etc... must be avoided because the effective penalty exceeds the gains.  Ordinary rough, flat bunkers, or waste bunkers are not sufficiently penal to warrant too much caution.  Even US Open rough is not necessarily the bogey producer one would think because it depends on grass type and other penalty areas for efficacy.  For example, if Winged Foot rough was Bermuda or Kikuyu at the same length, Bryson would have played more cautiously off the tee.

[nsxguy]

25 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

The bomb and gouge crowd would disagree  with you. Hit it as far as you can and go find it.....closer is better. Quite illogical to me but each to his own.

 

One last(?) time and that's it.

 

This is a perfect example of your trolling. A complete exaggeration intended to incite; which IS, according to board rules, prohibited.

 

NONE of the "bomb and gouge" crowd  has said "Hit is as far as you can and go find it" or anything close to that.

 

In point of fact most, if not all, said "Closer is better PROVIDED you're OK with the "risk reward" involved",,,,,,,,,,, or some form of caveat about your risk in getting closer to the hole.

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

See that is where you are wrong.  Effective penalty areas matter within a bomb and gouge strategy.  Anything that adds enough strokes to offset the lower strokes from being closer must be respected which is why Bryson doesn't always bomb it with driver.  Water, thick trees, shrubs, OB, deep bunkers,, etc... must be avoided because the effective penalty exceeds the gains.  Ordinary rough, flat bunkers, or waste bunkers are not sufficiently penal to warrant too much caution.  Even US Open rough is not necessarily the bogey producer one would think because it depends on grass type and other penalty areas for efficacy.  For example, if Winged Foot rough was Bermuda or Kikuyu at the same length, Bryson would have played more cautiously off the tee.

 

You're wasting your breath.

 

It's been said any number of times one needs to be aware of the penalty for a mistake when trying to get closer and there are plenty of times when one must lay back.

 

He doesn't care. He's just trying to provoke. 

[nsxguy]

32 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Well, you do have a group on this fine board that says it is an absolute "further is better" and who ever disagree with them is a troll.....

 

Oh, and nobody said that either,,,,,,,, but then you already know that,,,,,,,,

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

You're wasting your breath.

 

It's been said any number of times one needs to be aware of the penalty for a mistake when trying to get closer and there are plenty of times when one must lay back.

 

He doesn't care. He's just trying to provoke. 

It's probably my OCD cropping up again.

[Dr. Block]

Wouldn't it be a great moment for the Golfwrx forums if both of these threads could finally rest at the logical conclusions they've reached 🙂

[doobz]

On 10/23/2020 at 11:27 AM, Titleist99 said:

Curious minds want to know how 20 yards automatically means that you're putting inside 12 feet.....for birdie more often. your wedge game could totally be off from 80 yards when 100 yards is in your wheel house....Only high handicappers think like that. IMO of course. 

Because the data shows that the biggest indicator of proximity to hole on approaches is the distance from the green the approach is hit from. Every argument I've seen in this thread against taking the distance is all hypotheticals (e.g. well what if the guy who's long has a bad short game), where every piece of empirical evidence shows that hitting it further = lower scores

[Pepperturbo]

Leaders yesterday at Sherwood are said to be long, 300yds+, but not the longest on tour; one is 21st, another 112th and winner is #98.  And the course is relatively short by tour standards, with five Par 5's... 

 

IMO - media talks distance and makes up crap to fill the air.  What's interesting but NOT talked about is a given players yardage fluctuation from one week to the next.    Rory went from #3 to #5, and Rahm from #7 last week to 21 this past weekend, Finau from #8 last week to #18 this past weekend.  I suspect it was due to how Sherwood was setup.  Wasn't the ball or equipment.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Pepperturbo

[Dr. Block]

5 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Leaders yesterday at Sherwood are said to be long, 300yds+, but not the longest on tour; one is 21st, another 112th and winner is #98.  And the course is relatively short by tour standards, with five Par 5's... 

 

IMO - media talks distance and makes up crap to fill the air.  What's interesting but NOT talked about is a given players yardage fluctuation from one week to the next.    Rory went from #3 to #5, and Rahm from #7 last week to 21 this past weekend, Finau from #8 last week to #18 this past weekend.  I suspect it was due to how Sherwood was setup.  Wasn't the ball or equipment.

In my opinion, the best way forward to keep variety in the tour game and to the winners it produces is to keep a variety of different course types and set-ups.  Even the big bombers will adapt as needed (perhaps they are more strategic then I've given them credit for being).  It would have been interesting to watch Bryson at Sherwood, but I'm not surprised in the least he decided to skip.  I'm sure the numbers he ran were not to his liking.   

[Pepperturbo]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

In my opinion, the best way forward to keep variety in the tour game and to the winners it produces is to keep a variety of different course types and set-ups.  Even the big bombers will adapt as needed (perhaps they are more strategic then I've given them credit for being).  It would have been interesting to watch Bryson at Sherwood, but I'm not surprised in the least he decided to skip.  I'm sure the numbers he ran were not to his liking.   

 

I am not sure they are adapting as much as coping the best they can.   The tour is about hitting the ball as hard as possible.  Though Bryson has a short game, that's a bit different than being a feel player.  He's become all-in with every club, hit it as hard as possible.  Tiger was the same way when he muscled up.  It's due to added strength.  Because of the gym, I know, even at my age, thanks to my strength I get over the ball and want to hit the SH** out of it, still... Yesterday, out drove my 50yr old buddy 4 times.  He just stood at his ball and looked at me, smiling.  LOL 

Edited October 26, 2020 by Pepperturbo

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Actually, what's kinda "crazy talk" is you telling us how proficient you are from 90-75-50-40 but you don't know whether your proximity to the hole is better (than from 120).  

 

You agree that length is an advantage but admit you don't know whether you're better off from the 120 you play to than if you got to the "90 & under" yardages yet you argue against things that other HAVE tried.

 

You not being ABLE to play safely to those yardages is a completely different issue even though your length is STILL an advantage.

 

Now I'll be the first to agree that stats don't always tell you everything AND one can easily under- or over-estimate what the stats actually mean but some are pretty clear. Such as a pitcher's batting average (you ?) against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd time through the lineup.

 

I've never really paid attention to that stat but is there ANY pitcher whose BA against better the 3rd time through vs. the 2nd ? or the 2nd time through than the 1st ? The implication is pretty obvious, no ?  

 

You don't believe the difference is measurable from closer in ? How about jvincent's stats earlier in the thread ? Or is it "only a few feet" ?

 

 https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1772800-distance-wins-and-the-tour-am-i-way-off/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-23226132

 

 

 

The stats bare that ,  I’ve already agreed to that.  I’ve simply said that you have to first get safely to 90 yards , and then you have to make the putt.  That’s two “ifs” to make it true in practical terms.  
 

it’s the same argument as always. Stats tell you what “ should “ happen.  
 

so yes “ it’s only a few feet “ is a real answer in my opinion.  If you’re not a putter that makes enough putts , is it worth the risk off the tee ?   

[Bad9]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

 

Again, if you have read the Broadie book he very clearly states that closer is better IF it doesn't bring a hazard into play. Then the idea is to get as close to the hazard as possible without going in.

I don't know why so many seem to have trouble understanding that point.

[bladehunter]

14 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by bladehunter

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2020 by bladehunter

[Bad9]

4 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

It’s rarely mentioned is why.  It’s been mentioned here for the first time I’ve seen . 

It is mentioned in almost all of these threads when they come up. It just gets drowned out by the guys who say Broadie boils down to 300 in the rough is better than 270 in the fairway.

[Titleist99]

45 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Leaders yesterday at Sherwood are said to be long, 300yds+, but not the longest on tour; one is 21st, another 112th and winner is #98.  And the course is relatively short by tour standards, with five Par 5's... 

 

IMO - media talks distance and makes up crap to fill the air.  What's interesting but NOT talked about is a given players yardage fluctuation from one week to the next.    Rory went from #3 to #5, and Rahm from #7 last week to 21 this past weekend, Finau from #8 last week to #18 this past weekend.  I suspect it was due to how Sherwood was setup.  Wasn't the ball or equipment.

Agree totally...... Stats can be manipulated to fit any narrative. The eye test tells the story.....These guys are not hitting it 350 every week and sometimes Strategy trumps banging it with reckless abandon...... Sherwood is not that long yet the tournament was very entertaining.....IMO

[Titleist99]

47 minutes ago, Dr. Block said:

In my opinion, the best way forward to keep variety in the tour game and to the winners it produces is to keep a variety of different course types and set-ups.  Even the big bombers will adapt as needed (perhaps they are more strategic then I've given them credit for being).  It would have been interesting to watch Bryson at Sherwood, but I'm not surprised in the least he decided to skip.  I'm sure the numbers he ran were not to his liking.   

Exactly....

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

 

Again, if you have read the Broadie book he very clearly states that closer is better IF it doesn't bring a hazard into play. Then the idea is to get as close to the hazard as possible without going in.

And I don't disagree. But to those that state that it's an absolute with no data to back it up I strongly disagree.... 

[Titleist99]

30 minutes ago, Bad9 said:

I don't know why so many seem to have trouble understanding that point.

Because some say it an absolute without any caveat.....