Bubba Watson says golf doesn't celebrate "its great players", bemoans limiting big hitters

[Christosterone]

 

[bladehunter]

10 minutes ago, Christosterone said:

 

Pretty much says it all in a nutshell.  The fittest guy on tour.  49 yards short of Palmer. Yep.  Fitness.  🤦‍♂️

[bscinstnct]

27 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Pretty much says it all in a nutshell.  The fittest guy on tour.  49 yards short of Palmer. Yep.  Fitness.  🤦‍♂️

 

Bryson transported in time and teeing it up with Arnie in 1962….

 

 

What you drinking kid?

 

Uh, it’s a vegan protein shake 

What the h*ll is that?

 

Its for after I lift weights

 

After you what? That looks disgusting, go drink it over there behind those trees

 

<they hit their tee shots>
 

Looks like you’re away Byron DeShampoo

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

5 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Bryson transported in time and teeing it up with Arnie in 1962….

 

 

What you drinking kid?

 

Uh, it’s a vegan protein shake 

What the h*ll is that?

 

Its for after I lift weights

 

After you what? That looks disgusting, go drink it over there behind those trees

 

<they hit their tee shots>
 

Looks like you’re away Byron DeShampoo

 

 

 

All kidding aside. Mr Palmer  was eat up with IT....fitness. Good grief Charlie Brown.  

[tiderider]

6 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

"...this has been like talking to a wall." --- Geez no need to be insulting!

 

Lets recap--- 4 pages back you wanted to attribute the increased distance to Tiger to explain the chart I posted (that apparently you don't like).  However I showed the trend started years before Tigers arrival on tour, so then you moved on to other things, saying it was perhaps launch monitors and swing training to optimize swing speed.  The problem with that theory is that launch monitors didn't become ubiquitous at the pro level until the early/mid ~2000's, well after driving distances were increasing dramatically.  

 

I've shown the data for long drivers such as John Daly, Phil Mickelson and how their distance increased significantly during the period from about 1994 - 2004.  Not only did long drivers increase dramatically during that period but so did shorter drivers like Fred Funk.  Take your pick of any guy on tour and the results are virtually the same.  The entire field increased driving distance during that period.  You also keep attempting to discredit the "Driving Stats" methodology yet your argument has no merit.  Do you know anything about statistical sampling?  Those stats come from about ~150 drives per season per player---- that is plenty of a sampling to understand averages and changes.

 

Yes humans will keep evolving and distance will probably keep increasing. I find it very interesting at how the trend line from ~1980-1994 is more similar to the trend line from about 2006 to present, yet the trend for 1995-2005 is much steeper.  One has to ask the question, what happened during that period?  To my knowledge the most significant change during that period was the metal club head, shaft technology and the adaptation of the solid core ball. Not Tiger, not course conditions, not launch monitors and swing training.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[smashdn]

Need that draw spin to run it out there with a persimmon driver.  That was why Jack was so good.  He could hit the more controllable fade and not give up distance to the field.  Heel cut for control.

[munichop]

So I checked one stat out to verify what many here have believed all along, the tour encourages more aggressive play now than it did with the pre-computer tech equipment now available.  Not saying it is good or bad but Bubba's idea that length is hated just doesn't seem to be valid.  I looked up the average number of holes per eagle on tour going back as far as their public records.  In the 80's it was on the order of 400-330 holes per eagle.  The last 3 seasons it has been under 200 holes per eagle. So the fans used to see an eagles once every 18-22 rounds, now one every 11 rounds.  Lots of reasons for this but the idea that a bias against length is part of today's game is a little silly at this point.

[me05501]

Equipment is huge, but having the technology to OPTIMIZE the equipment to the player is huger..er. 

 

Jack and Arnie played gear they liked the feel of. They tweaked it to their preferences as well as they could, but no one was measuring their launch angles or spin rates. 

[storm319]

4 hours ago, bladehunter said:

Pretty much says it all in a nutshell.  The fittest guy on tour.  49 yards short of Palmer. Yep.  Fitness.  🤦‍♂️

 

Handing these guys a random persimmon driver that they have never swung before and balata balls that have been decomposing for 30+ years and expecting them to hit an incredible shot in a few swings? Cmon man

[bladehunter]

12 minutes ago, storm319 said:

 

Handing these guys a random persimmon driver that they have never swung before and balata balls that have been decomposing for 30+ years and expecting them to hit an incredible shot in a few swings? Cmon man

I mean these guys are good.  Right ?  And fit. Lol.  
 

 

sure.  With practice Rory could probably hit it as far as Mr Palmer.  
 

But he could probably drive that green with his current 3 wood from the tee Arnold played from.  And it’s not because he’s more fit , or faster , or hits it more solid.  

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

 

Handing these guys a random persimmon driver that they have never swung before and balata balls that have been decomposing for 30+ years and expecting them to hit an incredible shot in a few swings? Cmon man

Great point. The old gear takes far more skill to hit, right?

 

 

 

Now compare to if you handed Arnie a

 

Toaster head on a 45* graphite shaft and some pro v1s

 

He’d be like,

 

What the h*ll is this?!
 

Then he’d start laughing his @ss off blasting rockets 🚀 like,

 

“You gotta be kidding, this is legal?”

[storm319]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

Great point. The old gear takes far more skill to hit, right?

 

 

 

Now compare to if you handed Arnie a

 

Toaster head on a 45* graphite shaft and some pro v1s

 

He’d be like,

 

What the h*ll is this?!
 

Then he’d start laughing his @ss off blasting rockets 🚀 like,

 

“You gotta be kidding, this is legal?”

Not quite. Comparing Rory’s impromptu swing to what Arnie did is not an apples to apples comparison considering that Arnie was comfortable and probably had thousands of reps with the club he was swinging. If you were to travel back in time and hand Rory’s driver to Arnie at that moment in time, he likely wouldn’t have made that shot either (he would have no idea how to swing a driver that size/length/weight granted that may have changed with time and practice). 

Edited June 30, 2021 by storm319

[GolfTurkey]

Young Tom Morris was much better than Arnonld Palmer with a gutta percha ball and a baffing spoon or rut iron

[bscinstnct]

29 minutes ago, storm319 said:

No, comparing that to what Arnie did is not an apples to apples comparison. If you were to travel back in time and hand Rory’s driver to Arnie at that moment in time, he likely wouldn’t have made that shot either (he would have no idea how to swing a driver that size/length/weight). 

 

Here are the LPGA driving distance leaders.

 

 

They hit it farther than Phil or Ernie did in their early 20s

 

But it’s not the equipment ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

47 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Here are the LPGA driving distance leaders.

 

 

They hit it farther than Phil or Ernie did in their early 20s

 

But it’s not the equipment ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Careful there... presenting data will liken you to like "talking to a wall" according storm 🙂

[storm319]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Here are the LPGA driving distance leaders.

 

 

They hit it farther than Phil or Ernie did in their early 20s

 

But it’s not the equipment ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’d be interested in data that correlates the isolated equipment variable’s impact on distance increases (and remember to show your work to the class), but not really interested in anecdotal driving averages that prove nothing more than players are hitting the ball longer today than in the past (again due to multiple factors). 
 

BTW, the LPGA Tour has experienced all of the same non-equipment related paradigm shifts as the PGA Tour (albeit to a smaller scale). 

[bscinstnct]

28 minutes ago, storm319 said:

I’d be interested in data that correlates the isolated equipment variable’s impact on distance increases (and remember to show your work to the class), but not really interested in anecdotal driving averages that prove nothing more than players are hitting the ball longer today than in the past (again due to multiple factors). 
 

BTW, the LPGA Tour has experienced all of the same non-equipment related paradigm shifts as the PGA Tour (albeit to a smaller scale). 

 

2 things, first, stating that the data I presented is “anecdotal” is such an incorrect use of the word, I don’t know what to make of it.

 

Second, the USGA/R&A have been building a case to limit distance. They are focused 100% on equipment/ball roll-backs because it’s clear to all that equipment is the reason for the distance increases.

 

You can probably ask them to send you all their studies and data if you’d like to examine that which “correlates the isolated equipment variable’s impact on distance increases” ; )

 

 

 

 

[Soloman1]

 

 

Let's turn this around.

What's the data to support your position, storm319?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

6 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

2 things, first, stating that the data I presented is “anecdotal” is such an incorrect use of the word, I don’t know what to make of it.

 

Second, the USGA/R&A have been building a case to limit distance. They are focused 100% on equipment/ball roll-backs because it’s clear to all that equipment is the reason for the distance increases.

 

You can probably ask them to send you all their studies and data if you’d like to examine that which “correlates the isolated equipment variable’s impact on distance increases” ; )

 

 

 

 

Data is anecdotal?  It's almost like they don't have any training at all 🙂 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by BlackDiamondPar5

[phizzy30]

13 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I mean these guys are good.  Right ?  And fit. Lol.  
 

 

sure.  With practice Rory could probably hit it as far as Mr Palmer.  
 

But he could probably drive that green with his current 3 wood from the tee Arnold played from.  And it’s not because he’s more fit , or faster , or hits it more solid.  

I will say this.  If the equipment is the same across the board for all the longest guys on tour both past and present, it will come down to ss and ball speed IMO provided that the ball is hit dead center.  Swing path plays into it but to a lesser degree IMO.  As far as fitness goes, it does help with increasing ss but if a guy is already short off the tee, it's not gonna all the sudden make him the longest guy on tour because he works out.  Bryson is the exception, not the rule.  Brooks has always been long off the tee even when he first came out on the PGA Tour.  I remember seeing him on the Euro tour bombing tee balls.  Let's use John Daly for example.  That guy looks like he's never seen a dumb bell his entire life yet, in his prime, his ss was almost 130 mph.  That my friend is natural talent and an incredible amount of fast twitch.  Then you have a guy like Bryson who was averaging 290 off the tee, blew up from working out, and is now number 1 or 2 in driving distance. 

Edited June 30, 2021 by phizzy30

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, storm319 said:

 

Handing these guys a random persimmon driver that they have never swung before and balata balls that have been decomposing for 30+ years and expecting them to hit an incredible shot in a few swings? Cmon man

 

Here you go then.

 

 

[tiderider]

15 hours ago, storm319 said:

 

Handing these guys a random persimmon driver that they have never swung before and balata balls that have been decomposing for 30+ years and expecting them to hit an incredible shot in a few swings? Cmon man

so, you're saying with a little practice, he'd learn to ... what? ... swing slower, in a more controlled fashion? ... because the clubs are different? ... because the driver is shorter, smaller and heavier? ... requiring a purer strike with fewer misses? ... 

 

 

 

 

j/k ... can't miss a chance to get a 2nd aladdin gif in ... 

Edited June 30, 2021 by tiderider

[storm319]

7 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

2 things, first, stating that the data I presented is “anecdotal” is such an incorrect use of the word, I don’t know what to make of it.

 

Second, the USGA/R&A have been building a case to limit distance. They are focused 100% on equipment/ball roll-backs because it’s clear to all that equipment is the reason for the distance increases.

 

You can probably ask them to send you all their studies and data if you’d like to examine that which “correlates the isolated equipment variable’s impact on distance increases” ; )

 

 

 

 

The USGAs study was a joke. They are clearly trying to find a problem to fit their already decided rollback solution and they did a poor job of even identifying the problem (you can’t solution based on course footprint and maintenance cost complaints without defining the optimal goal in terms of a sustainable footprint for the future). Ultimately the burden of proof is on those with the theory advocating for change and this far the USGA has not proven that there is a distance problem. 
 

Stating things like “why is Phil longer than he was 30 years ago” as evidence that equipment is is solely responsible for distance increases is absolutely anecdotal. Presenting a graph of averages and jumping to the conclusion that a single factor must be the cause without any attempts to study and isolate other variables that were at play at the time is simply lazy and disingenuous. 

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Stating things like “why is Phil longer than he was 30 years ago” as evidence that equipment is is solely responsible for distance increases is absolutely anecdotal. Presenting a graph of averages and jumping to the conclusion that a single factor must be the cause without any attempts to study and isolate other variables that were at play at the time is simply lazy and disingenuous. 

 

There's that phrase again.  Where are we saying it is the sole reason?  Pareto out the reasons and I bet it would be #1 or #2 though.  And regardless of whether it is the chief driver or three pages deep on the list, the USGA is on record and has the stance that any distance gains are not desirable, but they only have the authority to impact the game in a limited way.  They can only effect rules for how the game is played and rules for the equipment used to play it.  They can't keep guys from using trackman.  They can't keep them out of the gym.  They aren't going to stop courses from cutting their grass how they want.  And they certainly aren't going to tell the PGA Tour how to set up a course.

 

What other variables, that are discrete and measurable, would you suggest they/we study and isolate? 

[milesgiles]

52 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Here you go then.

 

 

 

good video

 

"persimmon/balata puts a lot more emphasis on ball striking"

 

Exactly what people like me have been saying on here for years. The game has gone backwards. 

[storm319]

47 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Here you go then.

 

 

More of the same (that guy is swinging random persimmon heads that he has not had much experience with). Additionally it looks like they were switching between different models for the old ball tests (some which had different construction and were not widely used on tour). 
 

I am not sure why you think I am saying that equipment has not made a difference. I have said it has however I definitely think that many people over-exaggerate that impact. There were many factors that led to the increases we saw on the 90’s but it is impossible to isolate the impact of one single variable with simple averages. 

[bscinstnct]

28 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The USGAs study was a joke. They are clearly trying to find a problem to fit their already decided rollback solution and they did a poor job of even identifying the problem (you can’t solution based on course footprint and maintenance cost complaints without defining the optimal goal in terms of a sustainable footprint for the future). Ultimately the burden of proof is on those with the theory advocating for change and this far the USGA has not proven that there is a distance problem. 
 

Stating things like “why is Phil longer than he was 30 years ago” as evidence that equipment is is solely responsible for distance increases is absolutely anecdotal. Presenting a graph of averages and jumping to the conclusion that a single factor must be the cause without any attempts to study and isolate other variables that were at play at the time is simply lazy and disingenuous. 

 

“lazy and disingenuous”!

 

🤣

 

You reminded me of Kramer…

 

Meantime, I appreciate you sticking to your guns, really.

 

But you are trying to make this too complicated and into like a chemistry experiment and isolate variables to determine why a glass of chocolate milk doesn’t taste right…..

 

They make 2 glasses of chocolate milk. One has no Quik in it.

 

Its obvious that’s why it doesn’t taste like chocolate milk.

 

But you’re insisting that it’s because it was made in a different glass, stirred with a smaller spoon, and the barometric pressure was different ; )

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by bscinstnct

[storm319]

13 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

There's that phrase again.  Where are we saying it is the sole reason?  Pareto out the reasons and I bet it would be #1 or #2 though.  And regardless of whether it is the chief driver or three pages deep on the list, the USGA is on record and has the stance that any distance gains are not desirable, but they only have the authority to impact the game in a limited way.  They can only effect rules for how the game is played and rules for the equipment used to play it.  They can't keep guys from using trackman.  They can't keep them out of the gym.  They aren't going to stop courses from cutting their grass how they want.  And they certainly aren't going to tell the PGA Tour how to set up a course.

 

What other variables, that are discrete and measurable, would you suggest they/we study and isolate? 

The problem with the USGAs effort has been that they have failed to define what “desirable” is. A better use of their study efforts would have been to estimate an optimal course footprint for the future based on trends in participation, real estate cost, and fleet/environmental cost trends per acre (entire property not just the playing length of the course). Then they would have a starting point to legitimately discuss scaling the game.

 

While you are correct that the USGA has little control over some of the other factors, they have been one of the worst offenders with respect to course conditioning/setup. Ultimately if they want to reverse trends like decreasing fairway turf heights or playing length, they need to lead by example at the events that they host (Erin Hills was a prime example of what should not be encouraged).

Edited July 1, 2021 by storm319

[BlackDiamondPar5]

1 hour ago, storm319 said:

The USGAs study was a joke. They are clearly trying to find a problem to fit their already decided rollback solution and they did a poor job of even identifying the problem (you can’t solution based on course footprint and maintenance cost complaints without defining the optimal goal in terms of a sustainable footprint for the future). Ultimately the burden of proof is on those with the theory advocating for change and this far the USGA has not proven that there is a distance problem. 
 

Stating things like “why is Phil longer than he was 30 years ago” as evidence that equipment is is solely responsible for distance increases is absolutely anecdotal. Presenting a graph of averages and jumping to the conclusion that a single factor must be the cause without any attempts to study and isolate other variables that were at play at the time is simply lazy and disingenuous. 

 

No one said equipment was the sole reason for distance increases, yet you've done nothing but provide your own anecdotes such as; it was because of Tiger, Trackman, swing training, working out and agronomy.  So are you saying that anyone or all of those factors during the period from 1995-2006 has more impact on distance than equipment?  If so, then why did the dramatic rise in distance stop after 2006?   Show your data otherwise you're just continuing to push a lot of hot air theories.   

 

It's clear you have an agenda and an axe to grind and call anything that doesn't support your agenda a joke or anecdotal. Data is data and is plentiful and widely available.  Go to PGA Tour and look at 40 years of driving averages as a group or any specific player and the results are the same... dramatic increased driving length between ~1995 - 2006.  Yet how is the increase in distance after 2006 roughly the same as the distance increase from 1980 to 1994?  Something happened during the period between 1994-2006 and then stopped.  You can call that anecdotal but data is not anecdotal. Learn the word before you use it, otherwise it serves to make you look foolish.

 

 

 

 

  

Edited June 30, 2021 by BlackDiamondPar5

[storm319]

16 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

“lazy and disingenuous”!

 

🤣

 

You remind me of….

 

Meantime, I appreciate you sticking to your guns, really.

 

But you are trying to make this too complicated and into like a chemistry experiment and isolate variables to determine why a glass of chocolate milk doesn’t taste right…..

 

They make 2 glasses of chocolate milk. One has no Quik in it.

 

Its obvious that’s why it doesn’t taste like chocolate milk.

 

But you’re insisting that it’s because it was made in a different glass, stirred with a smaller spoon, and the barometric pressure was different ; )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The topic is complicated and attempts to simplify it don’t really change that. Ultimately this game is surrounded by a multi billion dollar industry involving millions of stake holders and thousands of jobs (not to mention the environmental impact) so I don’t think it is unreasonable to demand thorough due-diligence before changing any regulations especially with the USGAs track record.