distance debate

[milesgiles]

8 minutes ago, oikos1 said:

Lol.  That's right, the ball didn't change anything.  It's the damn toasters on a stick and 3" tees. 

 

Miles, you are too much.  🤣🤣🤣

 

the article specifically says it was because WOODS was using it that everyone else did.. other players were using solid balls long before, but they obviously didnt win as much by comparison.

 

Ive said many time it was a better game back then. Ive also said ball spin/construction/aerodynamics is complicated and so I havent advocated rolling back the BALL, yet. It MIGHT work, I simply dont know. My point stands, the game has been dumbed down, whether by toasters, balls, trackman, or anything else. 

[Titleist99]

20 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Ill ignore the rudeness on this occasion, but dont do it again.

 

The Nike ball didnt change anything. It says right there that almost everyone was using a solid ball by then. So what?

No rudeness there......I didn't call you stupid, I called your statement stupid. Big difference. I'm pretty stupid for continuing this debate....LOL!

[Titleist99]

40 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

i too turned off Mexico last week. Dull course, no test for the players. Ridiculously wide. The thread here was almost non existent. Compared to.. Bay Hill? Hilton Head? Sawgrass? Iconic courses and not low scoring, but all had huge threads here.

 

YOU were making the assertion that people want birdie fests.. thought you might have at least a little evidence for that.

My proof is the television ratings not the WRXer pages......

The fact that the USGA haven't rolled anything back is further proof that golf is fine.

[oikos1]

56 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

the article specifically says it was because WOODS was using it that everyone else did.. other players were using solid balls long before, but they obviously didnt win as much by comparison.

 

Ive said many time it was a better game back then. Ive also said ball spin/construction/aerodynamics is complicated and so I havent advocated rolling back the BALL, yet. It MIGHT work, I simply dont know. My point stands, the game has been dumbed down, whether by toasters, balls, trackman, or anything else. 

Fair enough.  I can accept your opinion that it has been "dumbed" down.

 

I suppose what I don't get is why are you still a part of the "dumbing" down?  Surely you know the game is not going back to an earlier era, yet you have the opportunity, every day, to play the game with any equipment you choose. 

 

Why do you feel the need to make everyone else change?

[farmer]

"but don't do it again", seriously?  

[clevited]

4 hours ago, Nard_S said:

edit.

 

I take it you thought better or something and deleted your post? Care to try again?

[Nard_S]

16 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

I take it you thought better or something and deleted your post? Care to try again?

Ha, no.

[clevited]

9 minutes ago, Nard_S said:

Ha, no.

 

Great conversation, at least you tried.

[Nard_S]

3 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

Great conversation, at least you tried.

Well thank you, I just thought I said more than enough.

[MUNIGRIT]

73 pages of lets go back to wooden heads and leather feathered balls.........

Edited May 4, 2022 by MUNIGRIT

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Fair enough.  I can accept your opinion that it has been "dumbed" down.

 

I suppose what I don't get is why are you still a part of the "dumbing" down?  Surely you know the game is not going back to an earlier era, yet you have the opportunity, every day, to play the game with any equipment you choose. 

 

Why do you feel the need to make everyone else change?

 

I’ve answered that several times.

 

1. No organised competitions with traditional equipment. If I play normal handicap qualifiers with them obviously my handicap goes up and the Open events I can get into goes down 

 

2. I only said it was for pro’s and amateurs in gross competitions, duffers can use what they want if they have no pride in their game 

[milesgiles]

5 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

My proof is the television ratings not the WRXer pages......

The fact that the USGA haven't rolled anything back is further proof that golf is fine.

 

Ratings overall are lower than pre Woods

[OrangeGravy]

On 4/28/2022 at 10:11 AM, Titleist99 said:

Let me be clear! ........The PGATOUR is an entertainment business. They want to see birdies on their tour. The tour does not want to see carnage...you can get that from the four Major tournaments.......

 

Modern golf sells on Television......If you can't understand that, Well, that's okay too.......LOL!

Modern golf doesn't sell any more or less than any other version of tour golf. Marketable stars sell golf and we all no who's on that very tiny list. Outside of those players, golf's popularity is basically static. Its about the players and golf rarely has enough star power to trend upwards in ratings

[buckeyefl]

14 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Maybe.. but we are now in a place where you are going to get a ton of players with one or two majors each. No dynasties, no established number one, no great champions to get misty eyed over.

Look at the success in tennis when three genuinely great players come along at once. The mens game is in a better state than at any time since at least Borg Mcenroe

More emotion brought to the topic which has zero bearing on the non-issue. Golf will survive, the game will survive, you favorite course you are emotionally attached to will survive. Stop trying to squash peoples fun over your personal hang-ups and emotions.

[clevited]

Not sure if any of you watch hockey but it is largely like the PGA tour in my opinion.  It is chock full of parity.  I enjoy that as it can be anyone's season and the playoffs can be hotly contested with game lots of game 7s.  The tour since Tiger is no different imo.  It is parity.  Any number of guys can win any given week.  Players go on hot streaks for a while and cool off just like NHL teams.  I get that some people want New England Patriots like domination because well, having one big focal point in a given sport can be exciting in a different way.  I tend to like the parity much more and when it comes to golf, I have many favorite players.  

 

I maintain that some sort of extra set of tournaments would be a great place to test new fangled game ideas.  I really do see that as a viable possibility that can make everyone happy in the long run.  Add a couple of extra tournaments that use throw back equipment or special prototype equipment commissioned by the USGA for testing.  Completely separate events with big purses and are maybe invite only to the top 10 ranked players in the world or something.  That could add a couple of tournaments for the old dudes to look forward to, and it could spark interest in that version of the game and spread naturally thus everyone is happy and nobody gets forced into anything.

Edited May 4, 2022 by clevited

[smashdn]

16 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Television viewing entertainment is for the many and not the few.........You my friend are the few.

 

In other words, you have to put on TV what the masses want to see...otherwise it won't be on TV for long..     IMO

 

I agree with that.  Where I want to ensure I am clear is that there is a distinction as to what may be in the best interest of the PGAT and TV golf and that of Golf as the game.  They are somewhat linked but not one and the same.

[smashdn]

15 hours ago, Simpsonia said:

 

Curious you put it that way since you're also arguing that the longest hitters in golf should be prevented by rules from hitting the ball as far as they can. But I guess we should give those short hitters a chance, right? 

 

I am sure you said this in jest, but let's really dive into this.

 

No one is arguing that hitting the ball a long way is not an advantage.  I don't think I would put it as "prevented by rules from hitting the ball as far as they can" because there already are and always have been (in their lifetimes) rules that regulated the equipment in a way that did just that, "prevented a player from hitting it as far as they can."  There are already max shaft length, head size (460cc) and COR rules in place.

 

I also would not look at the desire to alter the existing equipment rules as "giving short hitters a chance."  Being able to hit the ball a long way is still a benefit regardless of the equipment it is done with.  What I would say is the reason for the desire to alter the equipment rules (at least mine anyway) is to restore the balance of importance of the different facets of the game in a way that ensures that the incredibly skillful players, at facets other than driving, are not so marginalized they don't have a fighting chance to compete.

 

I look at incredibly successful players such as Faldo, Luke Donald, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw, etc., guys not know to be great drivers of the golf ball but highly skilled in the other facets, and wonder if a player in that mold has a chance to rise to that level without also being able to drive the ball 310.

 

So I wouldn't say it is about giving short hitters a chance.  That is over simplistic.  To me it is about giving guys with dominant short games, dominant putting, precision iron play equal footing.  If you then combine that skill with average to above average driving you should be winning regularly.

[MUNIGRIT]

2007 PGA on yesterday. Els hit 8 iron from 179 past the pin..........

[oikos1]

9 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

I’ve answered that several times.

 

1. No organised competitions with traditional equipment. If I play normal handicap qualifiers with them obviously my handicap goes up and the Open events I can get into goes down 

 

2. I only said it was for pro’s and amateurs in gross competitions, duffers can use what they want if they have no pride in their game 

Some progress.  At least you have established you have no pride in your game when playing a toaster on a stick.

 

 

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

I am sure you said this in jest, but let's really dive into this.

 

No one is arguing that hitting the ball a long way is not an advantage.  I don't think I would put it as "prevented by rules from hitting the ball as far as they can" because there already are and always have been (in their lifetimes) rules that regulated the equipment in a way that did just that, "prevented a player from hitting it as far as they can."  There are already max shaft length, head size (460cc) and COR rules in place.

 

I also would not look at the desire to alter the existing equipment rules as "giving short hitters a chance."  Being able to hit the ball a long way is still a benefit regardless of the equipment it is done with.  What I would say is the reason for the desire to alter the equipment rules (at least mine anyway) is to restore the balance of importance of the different facets of the game in a way that ensures that the incredibly skillful players, at facets other than driving, are not so marginalized they don't have a fighting chance to compete.

 

I look at incredibly successful players such as Faldo, Luke Donald, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw, etc., guys not know to be great drivers of the golf ball but highly skilled in the other facets, and wonder if a player in that mold has a chance to rise to that level without also being able to drive the ball 310.

 

So I wouldn't say it is about giving short hitters a chance.  That is over simplistic.  To me it is about giving guys with dominant short games, dominant putting, precision iron play equal footing.  If you then combine that skill with average to above average driving you should be winning regularly.

"I look at incredibly successful players such as Faldo, Luke Donald, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw, etc., guys not know to be great drivers of the golf ball but highly skilled in the other facets, and wonder if a player in that mold has a chance to rise to that level without also being able to drive the ball 310."

 

I would present to you my favorite example of distance not being the overriding factor for sucess on the PGATOUR. Brendon Todd is the shortest driver of the golf ball on tour, yet he has multiple wins and can compete with anyone. If you take a look at the top 20 of the longest drivers you'll find that most of them aren't half as impressive as Mr. Todd....

[oikos1]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

I am sure you said this in jest, but let's really dive into this.

 

No one is arguing that hitting the ball a long way is not an advantage.  I don't think I would put it as "prevented by rules from hitting the ball as far as they can" because there already are and always have been (in their lifetimes) rules that regulated the equipment in a way that did just that, "prevented a player from hitting it as far as they can."  There are already max shaft length, head size (460cc) and COR rules in place.

 

I also would not look at the desire to alter the existing equipment rules as "giving short hitters a chance."  Being able to hit the ball a long way is still a benefit regardless of the equipment it is done with.  What I would say is the reason for the desire to alter the equipment rules (at least mine anyway) is to restore the balance of importance of the different facets of the game in a way that ensures that the incredibly skillful players, at facets other than driving, are not so marginalized they don't have a fighting chance to compete.

 

I look at incredibly successful players such as Faldo, Luke Donald, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw, etc., guys not know to be great drivers of the golf ball but highly skilled in the other facets, and wonder if a player in that mold has a chance to rise to that level without also being able to drive the ball 310.

 

So I wouldn't say it is about giving short hitters a chance.  That is over simplistic.  To me it is about giving guys with dominant short games, dominant putting, precision iron play equal footing.  If you then combine that skill with average to above average driving you should be winning regularly.

What's out of balance? 

 

In 2021, the Top 60 in driving distance all avg. at least 300 yards.  The top ten were 10-15 yards longer with the top driver at 323 yards.

 

In 1995, the Top 60 in driving distance all avg. at least 267 yards.  The top ten were 10-15 yards longer with the top driver at 289 yards.

 

In 1985,  The Top 60 in driving distance all avg. at least 263 yards.  The top ten were, wait for it, 10-15 yards longer with the top driver at 278 yards.

 

Players are hitting it farther, but the ratio of longer hitters compared to shorter hitters, at least for the Top 60, has remained fairly consistent.  The idea that other golf skills, or "facets of the game", are not needed to be successful and win on the PGA Tour is patently false.

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

I agree with that.  Where I want to ensure I am clear is that there is a distinction as to what may be in the best interest of the PGAT and TV golf and that of Golf as the game.  They are somewhat linked but not one and the same.

In my mind, the product that earns television rights and give golf it's best chance to prosper is good for the game.....forcing the old game on a modern game public would be rolling the dice...... some seems to think that modern golf lacks skill. I find that terribly short sighted.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

10 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Ratings overall are lower than pre Woods

Of course they are, Woods was/is a phenom and we're still witnessing history. We need more stars in the game of golf or a dominate player that rules the fairways......

Tiger Woods turned golf into a real sport instead of a niche sport like darts......IMO

Edited May 4, 2022 by Titleist99

[Titleist99]

7 hours ago, OrangeGravy said:

Modern golf doesn't sell any more or less than any other version of tour golf. Marketable stars sell golf and we all no who's on that very tiny list. Outside of those players, golf's popularity is basically static. Its about the players and golf rarely has enough star power to trend upwards in ratings

Well, CBS and NBC signed a deal with the PGATOUR that ends in 2030 at $700M a year. That's a 70% increase of the prior rights agreement. 2022-2030. The total of the deal I think is $7Billion (don't quote me)

This deal was stuck even though the SGL league is trying to steal the big name players.

 

They're betting on the game of golf and not any of the players.......

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

"I look at incredibly successful players such as Faldo, Luke Donald, Tom Kite, Ben Crenshaw, etc., guys not know to be great drivers of the golf ball but highly skilled in the other facets, and wonder if a player in that mold has a chance to rise to that level without also being able to drive the ball 310."

 

I would present to you my favorite example of distance not being the overriding factor for sucess on the PGATOUR. Brendon Todd is the shortest driver of the golf ball on tour, yet he has multiple wins and can compete with anyone. If you take a look at the top 20 of the longest drivers you'll find that most of them aren't half as impressive as Mr. Todd....

 

Two things.  First I didn't say it was an overriding factor.  That word has a meaning and that is not what I meant or said.  

Second thing there are no doubt exceptions to the generality, as it is just a maxim or generality, based upon evidence, that when I think in my mind of the evidence I go back to Broadie's work and Strokes Gained.

 

With all due respect to Brendon Todd, he is not a major winner nor former number one in the world.

 

 

2 hours ago, oikos1 said:

What's out of balance? 

 

 

Players are hitting it farther, but the ratio of longer hitters compared to shorter hitters, at least for the Top 60, has remained fairly consistent.  The idea that other golf skills, or "facets of the game", are not needed to be successful and win on the PGA Tour is patently false.

 

 

First bolded part - Looking at SG concepts that have been presented in the last 20 years or so there has been an increase in the magnitude of the impact of the driving distance variable and a minimization in the impact of driving accuracy. I am not necessarily saying it is "out of balance" just that the balance has shifted since the mid 80's.  Driving distance total SG impact has increased while accuracy's impact has decreased.  Shorthand, it is more important to scoring to drive it farther than to be accurate now than it used to be.

 

Second bolded part.  I agree.  And I didn't say what you have stated there.  I said the other skills (save for in a single tournament application putting) are minimized when compared to the importance of Driving on outcome.  There is a big difference between not needed and what I said.

 

https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance

The impact or importance of driving distance has increased while the impact or importance of accuracy has decreased.  SG-Around the Green appears to have slightly increased while others in that second graph look flat to me.

 

From the article I linked, "5. So, what is our answer to the question [question: Is having above-average driving distance now affords a larger advantage than it did in the past?] we laid out in the introduction? Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'it depends'. Only looking at data in the strokes-gained era of 2004-onwards, it seems unambiguously true that distance is playing a larger role in overall performance on the PGA Tour in recent years. However, taking the longer view from 1984-2019, we see that this relationship has fluctuated around a pretty flat trend line, and this recent uptick does not look like that much of an aberration."

 

The graphs are dead in this > https://golf.com/instruction/driving/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-on-tour-anymore/ < but it also comes to the same conclusion.

[Titleist99]

6 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Two things.  First I didn't say it was an overriding factor.  That word has a meaning and that is not what I meant or said.  

Second thing there are no doubt exceptions to the generality, as it is just a maxim or generality, based upon evidence, that when I think in my mind of the evidence I go back to Broadie's work and Strokes Gained.

 

With all due respect to Brendon Todd, he is not a major winner nor former number one in the world.

 

 

 

 

First bolded part - Looking at SG concepts that have been presented in the last 20 years or so there has been an increase in the magnitude of the impact of the driving distance variable and a minimization in the impact of driving accuracy. I am not necessarily saying it is "out of balance" just that the balance has shifted since the mid 80's.  Driving distance total SG impact has increased while accuracy's impact has decreased.  Shorthand, it is more important to scoring to drive it farther than to be accurate now than it used to be.

 

Second bolded part.  I agree.  And I didn't say what you have stated there.  I said the other skills (save for in a single tournament application putting) are minimized when compared to the importance of Driving on outcome.  There is a big difference between not needed and what I said.

 

https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance

The impact or importance of driving distance has increased while the impact or importance of accuracy has decreased.  SG-Around the Green appears to have slightly increased while others in that second graph look flat to me.

 

From the article I linked, "5. So, what is our answer to the question [question: Is having above-average driving distance now affords a larger advantage than it did in the past?] we laid out in the introduction? Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'it depends'. Only looking at data in the strokes-gained era of 2004-onwards, it seems unambiguously true that distance is playing a larger role in overall performance on the PGA Tour in recent years. However, taking the longer view from 1984-2019, we see that this relationship has fluctuated around a pretty flat trend line, and this recent uptick does not look like that much of an aberration."

 

The graphs are dead in this > https://golf.com/instruction/driving/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-on-tour-anymore/ < but it also comes to the same conclusion.

My point was.....If Brendon Todd can do it anyone can, without hitting it 310 off the tee.

That would encompass the entire rank and file present and future.....IMO

[Titleist99]

11 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Two things.  First I didn't say it was an overriding factor.  That word has a meaning and that is not what I meant or said.  

Second thing there are no doubt exceptions to the generality, as it is just a maxim or generality, based upon evidence, that when I think in my mind of the evidence I go back to Broadie's work and Strokes Gained.

 

With all due respect to Brendon Todd, he is not a major winner nor former number one in the world.

 

 

 

 

First bolded part - Looking at SG concepts that have been presented in the last 20 years or so there has been an increase in the magnitude of the impact of the driving distance variable and a minimization in the impact of driving accuracy. I am not necessarily saying it is "out of balance" just that the balance has shifted since the mid 80's.  Driving distance total SG impact has increased while accuracy's impact has decreased.  Shorthand, it is more important to scoring to drive it farther than to be accurate now than it used to be.

 

Second bolded part.  I agree.  And I didn't say what you have stated there.  I said the other skills (save for in a single tournament application putting) are minimized when compared to the importance of Driving on outcome.  There is a big difference between not needed and what I said.

 

https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance

The impact or importance of driving distance has increased while the impact or importance of accuracy has decreased.  SG-Around the Green appears to have slightly increased while others in that second graph look flat to me.

 

From the article I linked, "5. So, what is our answer to the question [question: Is having above-average driving distance now affords a larger advantage than it did in the past?] we laid out in the introduction? Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'it depends'. Only looking at data in the strokes-gained era of 2004-onwards, it seems unambiguously true that distance is playing a larger role in overall performance on the PGA Tour in recent years. However, taking the longer view from 1984-2019, we see that this relationship has fluctuated around a pretty flat trend line, and this recent uptick does not look like that much of an aberration."

 

The graphs are dead in this > https://golf.com/instruction/driving/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-on-tour-anymore/ < but it also comes to the same conclusion.

"First bolded part - Looking at SG concepts that have been presented in the last 20 years or so there has been an increase in the magnitude of the impact of the driving distance variable and a minimization in the impact of driving accuracy. I am not necessarily saying it is "out of balance" just that the balance has shifted since the mid 80's.  Driving distance total SG impact has increased while accuracy's impact has decreased.  Shorthand, it is more important to scoring to drive it farther than to be accurate now than it used to be."

 

IMO.....This is a direct biproduct of weak setups on tour that's not holding the players accountable for their off line drives......And that's just how the PGATOUR wants it. IMO

[smashdn]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

My point was.....If Brendon Todd can do it anyone can, without hitting it 310 off the tee.

That would encompass the entire rank and file present and future.....IMO

 

My point was I never said he couldn't.  I don't think I have ever typed that any PGAT simply "could not win" due to their length in any given tournament.

 

My point is that it is harder than ever to not only win, but stay near the top if you are not in the upper half of distance.  It is a change.  A change in how the game is played and a change in the importance of the "golf skills'," if you will, impact on winning.  Some things have become more important (distance), others (accuracy) are less important. 

 

Couple that with the fact that when driving it farther, accuracy inherently becomes less important because the impact of inaccuracy is less profound it is no surprise why the game has evolved to what it has.  A 150 yard approach from the rough results in less favorable outcomes than does a 130 yard approach. 

 

That being said, with the rough height they get into at a normal tournament, there gets to be a point where accuracy ceases to really matter at all provided you aren't blocked out by something.  An 80 yard shot from the rough is not a deterrent, and certainly not to the point where a guy would give up 20 yards (or more) just to ensure he keeps it in the fairway.  The reward of being closer outweighs any risk the rough can present.  Rough height is not really something I want to delve into though.

[Titleist99]

31 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

Two things.  First I didn't say it was an overriding factor.  That word has a meaning and that is not what I meant or said.  

Second thing there are no doubt exceptions to the generality, as it is just a maxim or generality, based upon evidence, that when I think in my mind of the evidence I go back to Broadie's work and Strokes Gained.

 

With all due respect to Brendon Todd, he is not a major winner nor former number one in the world.

 

 

 

 

First bolded part - Looking at SG concepts that have been presented in the last 20 years or so there has been an increase in the magnitude of the impact of the driving distance variable and a minimization in the impact of driving accuracy. I am not necessarily saying it is "out of balance" just that the balance has shifted since the mid 80's.  Driving distance total SG impact has increased while accuracy's impact has decreased.  Shorthand, it is more important to scoring to drive it farther than to be accurate now than it used to be.

 

Second bolded part.  I agree.  And I didn't say what you have stated there.  I said the other skills (save for in a single tournament application putting) are minimized when compared to the importance of Driving on outcome.  There is a big difference between not needed and what I said.

 

https://datagolf.com/importance-of-driving-distance

The impact or importance of driving distance has increased while the impact or importance of accuracy has decreased.  SG-Around the Green appears to have slightly increased while others in that second graph look flat to me.

 

From the article I linked, "5. So, what is our answer to the question [question: Is having above-average driving distance now affords a larger advantage than it did in the past?] we laid out in the introduction? Unfortunately, I think the answer is 'it depends'. Only looking at data in the strokes-gained era of 2004-onwards, it seems unambiguously true that distance is playing a larger role in overall performance on the PGA Tour in recent years. However, taking the longer view from 1984-2019, we see that this relationship has fluctuated around a pretty flat trend line, and this recent uptick does not look like that much of an aberration."

 

The graphs are dead in this > https://golf.com/instruction/driving/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-on-tour-anymore/ < but it also comes to the same conclusion.

The graphs are dead in this > https://golf.com/instruction/driving/bombs-away-why-accuracy-isnt-everything-on-tour-anymore/ < but it also comes to the same conclusion.

 

This article totally......100% supports my position.

[Titleist99]

9 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

My point was I never said he couldn't.  I don't think I have ever typed that any PGAT simply "could not win" due to their length in any given tournament.

 

My point is that it is harder than ever to not only win, but stay near the top if you are not in the upper half of distance.  It is a change.  A change in how the game is played and a change in the importance of the "golf skills'," if you will, impact on winning.  Some things have become more important (distance), others (accuracy) are less important. 

 

Couple that with the fact that when driving it farther, accuracy inherently becomes less important because the impact of inaccuracy is less profound it is no surprise why the game has evolved to what it has.  A 150 yard approach from the rough results in less favorable outcomes than does a 130 yard approach. 

 

That being said, with the rough height they get into at a normal tournament, there gets to be a point where accuracy ceases to really matter at all provided you aren't blocked out by something.  An 80 yard shot from the rough is not a deterrent, and certainly not to the point where a guy would give up 20 yards (or more) just to ensure he keeps it in the fairway.  The reward of being closer outweighs any risk the rough can present.  Rough height is not really something I want to delve into though.

IMO.....That's not a golf thing, that's PGATOUR thing. It's called modern golf, let 'um hit it out of the rough.....