distance debate

[smashdn]

21 hours ago, clevited said:

 

Good to know, thank you for that.  The reason I was asking was I wanted to know if the women's game is more appealing to the rollbackers being as their driving distance is more similar to the 80s mens tour.  Wonder if they played the men's tees how they would feel as it would basically be equivalent to what I think would be the desired distance rollback needed to address the "problem" on tour.

I wouldn't say I prefer to watch the LPGA but I do enjoy watching their game.  They don't typically muscle big bending shots much but they do play some very entertaining shots and good golf.  They don't play often on very architecturally engaging courses however.

 

I enjoyed watching a few of the holes at TPC Craig Ranch today because the course conditions enabled the players to use the surrounds to funnel the ball towards the hole. Whether they were hitting that as their second or third didn't make much difference to me, but the low runners were most often woods on seconds into part fives.  Though I would say the PGAT could set things up for more difficulty.  Irrespective of distance, I don't really care much for birdie fests.

[clevited]

8 hours ago, smashdn said:

I wouldn't say I prefer to watch the LPGA but I do enjoy watching their game.  They don't typically muscle big bending shots much but they do play some very entertaining shots and good golf.  They don't play often on very architecturally engaging courses however.

 

I enjoyed watching a few of the holes at TPC Craig Ranch today because the course conditions enabled the players to use the surrounds to funnel the ball towards the hole. Whether they were hitting that as their second or third didn't make much difference to me, but the low runners were most often woods on seconds into part fives.  Though I would say the PGAT could set things up for more difficulty.  Irrespective of distance, I don't really care much for birdie fests.

 

I am just curious why I don't see that as an example of what the game could be with a roll back of some sort.  I don't see people clamoring for that version of the game and pointing to it as an example, or a look see, that is what it could be.  If people have used it as an example, I have not seen it in these types of threads, or it wasn't mentioned enough for me to remember it. 

 

I can understand some people enjoying it more as the distance of the ladies can be more similar to many good amateur men and they find it relates to them more, but that isn't a valid reason for any kind of roll back imo, and I don't think anyone uses that as a reason.  Most people don't watch the level of sport that matches their level, they watch the elite play it in elite fashion and are in awe of what they can do.  (Ladies are far beyond what most men can do even distance wise, guys are just often in denial 🙂, so honestly I like it all but don't get to catch the ladies tour as much ) 

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

I am just curious why I don't see that as an example of what the game could be with a roll back of some sort.  I don't see people clamoring for that version of the game and pointing to it as an example, or a look see, that is what it could be.  If people have used it as an example, I have not seen it in these types of threads, or it wasn't mentioned enough for me to remember it. 

 

I can understand some people enjoying it more as the distance of the ladies can be more similar to many good amateur men and they find it relates to them more, but that isn't a valid reason for any kind of roll back imo, and I don't think anyone uses that as a reason.  Most people don't watch the level of sport that matches their level, they watch the elite play it in elite fashion and are in awe of what they can do.  (Ladies are far beyond what most men can do even distance wise, guys are just often in denial 🙂, so honestly I like it all but don't get to catch the ladies tour as much ) 

I don’t mind watching it, I do like that there seems to be more variety in who can compete, but the top level men do just about everything better on much harder setups, regardless of distance. I think the tournament yesterday has a lot of good examples of the problems, outside maybe 16 playing into the wind there were several 470+ par 4s and they were all hitting wedges and short irons. Even 502 was driver 9 iron. Granted it was hot and playing fast so you have to give credit for getting it in the fairway at that distance.

 

I do agree course design/selection is an issue, you can’t just make it longer, you have to make them think about it, seems like there was no risk to just blast away most holes. I don’t think I’d want to see them rolled back to ladies’ distances (longest hitter on the ladies’ tour would be bottom 10 on the PGA) but a slight dial back could make things more interesting.

[clevited]

4 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I don’t mind watching it, I do like that there seems to be more variety in who can compete, but the top level men do just about everything better on much harder setups, regardless of distance. I think the tournament yesterday has a lot of good examples of the problems, outside maybe 16 playing into the wind there were several 470+ par 4s and they were all hitting wedges and short irons. Even 502 was driver 9 iron. Granted it was hot and playing fast so you have to give credit for getting it in the fairway at that distance.

 

I do agree course design/selection is an issue, you can’t just make it longer, you have to make them think about it, seems like there was no risk to just blast away most holes. I don’t think I’d want to see them rolled back to ladies’ distances (longest hitter on the ladies’ tour would be bottom 10 on the PGA) but a slight dial back could make things more interesting.

 

The problem with a "slight" dial back is it wouldn't do anything.  It would have to be pretty substantial or else this whole conversation comes up again and accomplishes a net of nothing.  I don't know if you have seen the posts myself and others put up mentioning the self imposed distance cap a lot of guys have to adopt.  They have much higher ceilings than they use on the course.  This pertains to at least quite a large number of players, especially the longest guys.  Some guys operate closer to their max than others, but most have quite a bit left in the tank and don't use it not always because they are more squirrely with it, but because it isn't helpful enough to warrant it.  

 

Lets say you dial just the ball back 5%.  Well, not much will change after a little bit of time passes.  It would have to be very substantial, and I believe it would have to be a 15-20% distance nerf to accomplish the goal the RBs have and for this to never come up again.

[Maximilian]

1 hour ago, clevited said:

 

I am just curious why I don't see that as an example of what the game could be with a roll back of some sort.  I don't see people clamoring for that version of the game and pointing to it as an example, or a look see, that is what it could be.  If people have used it as an example, I have not seen it in these types of threads, or it wasn't mentioned enough for me to remember it. 

 

I can understand some people enjoying it more as the distance of the ladies can be more similar to many good amateur men and they find it relates to them more, but that isn't a valid reason for any kind of roll back imo, and I don't think anyone uses that as a reason.  Most people don't watch the level of sport that matches their level, they watch the elite play it in elite fashion and are in awe of what they can do.  (Ladies are far beyond what most men can do even distance wise, guys are just often in denial 🙂, so honestly I like it all but don't get to catch the ladies tour as much ) 

I don't want them to roll anything back just because I would enjoy watching the pros hit the ball shorter. I want them to do it so they can continue to play a lot of interesting courses which will sooner or later be replaced because the playing area is too small.

 

Watching the PGA Tour is still fun, but look at what they are doing to those courses to keep them relevant. There really aren't that many courses out there that are both interesting to watch the highest level tackel, and still able manage the infrastructure. If you watch golf on the levels below the PGA Tour, they are having a really hard time finding adequate courses now. The players on top of those leaderboard totally destroy those courses and the winning scores are usually incredibly low. Sure, the best player wins and we get to see how truly amazing these guys are, but it really isn't that entertaining to watch, at least for me. If we did nothing to the current PGA Tour courses and nothing to the equipment, that's what the PGA Tour would soon look like.

 

But as long as they continue to build new, very large courses, or continue to expand and remodel current courses, it's fine. Just seems totally unnecessary to me. Plus I think it's a shame for the great courses that will no longer be relevant because they can't expand them more or can't afford to remodel them.

 

And for the record, I'm not saying a golf course needs to be very long to be entertaining. Look at the 10th at Riviera, very entertaining! But unfortunately most courses don't have a lot of interesting holes like that were length doesn't matter much. More often they were designed in a way that tried to make them interesting, but unfortunately because of how long the guys hit it today, just isn't very interesting anymore. And a whole course with only short, tricky holes like the 10th at Riviera would probably not be much fun in the long run either.

 

My 2 cents. 🙃

[Golferpaul]

12 hours ago, smashdn said:

I enjoyed watching a few of the holes at TPC Craig Ranch today because the course conditions enabled the players to use the surrounds to funnel the ball towards the hole. Whether they were hitting that as their second or third didn't make much difference to me, but the low runners were most often woods on seconds into part fives.  Though I would say the PGAT could set things up for more difficulty.  Irrespective of distance, I don't really care much for birdie fests.

I went to the tournament and enjoyed it.  I like birdie fests.  But for those that don't, just change par to 68.  All par 5s become 4s.  Problem solved.

 

The back nine on Sunday was spectacularly exciting.  Six or eight golfers with a chance to win.  Whether they were trying to make pars, birdies, or eagles is immaterial to me.

[smashdn]

3 hours ago, clevited said:

 

I am just curious why I don't see that as an example of what the game could be with a roll back of some sort.  I don't see people clamoring for that version of the game and pointing to it as an example, or a look see, that is what it could be. 

 

I am not sure that the men's game would look like that with a roll back (and that really depends upon what exactly equipment-wise is changing).  

 

What might be a desirable aspect of the ladies' game is the parity (not the best word) that existed between the players that drove the ball a long way and those that did not.  Inbee Park is a short driver of the ball but was a dominant player.  Highly accurate driver of the ball and an excellent putter.  Despite getting out driven by ~30 yards consistently she well more than held her own.

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, clevited said:

but because it isn't helpful enough to warrant it.  

 

You end talking about the difference between a 9i and a PW or between a GW and SW.  So yeah I agree that on the majority of holes there doesn't seem a compelling reason to attempt to drive it 330 when 315 will do just fine.

 

JT yesterday stuck a 5w 255 from the first cut.  Wiki says he is 5'10" 160lbs.  I don't know the answer.  Not sure if it is equipment or fitness or both. 

 

What I will say is that someone with more muscle mass, who is just as quick, and taller, should be able to, on occasion when the ball is struck pure, eclipse his distance.  But yet I see people fitting that bill, but single digit caps, not able to do it.  Even when the stars align for a person who I think we would say is well above an average golfer, that distance is not duplicated.

[Simpsonia]

56 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You end talking about the difference between a 9i and a PW or between a GW and SW.  So yeah I agree that on the majority of holes there doesn't seem a compelling reason to attempt to drive it 330 when 315 will do just fine.

 

JT yesterday stuck a 5w 255 from the first cut.  Wiki says he is 5'10" 160lbs.  I don't know the answer.  Not sure if it is equipment or fitness or both. 

 

What I will say is that someone with more muscle mass, who is just as quick, and taller, should be able to, on occasion when the ball is struck pure, eclipse his distance.  But yet I see people fitting that bill, but single digit caps, not able to do it.  Even when the stars align for a person who I think we would say is well above an average golfer, that distance is not duplicated.

 

That's because we're starting to see the fruits of a couple generations of kids raised on ultra-competitive golf from a young age. Kids who started golf that young, and were given comparative advantages of practice, coaching, etc were able to figure out how to swing as hard as physically possible but still hit the ball so very accurately. It's something that can only be learned as a kid. It's how someone like Rory (who is similarly statured 5'9", maybe 165lbs?) is one of the longest (#8 in distance) and is still very accurate (even at 115th in driving accuracy, it's only a ~12% difference in FIR vs #1). 

 

Edit: I guarantee you if stars of yesteryear were given the same advantages when they were kids, they'd be hitting it just as far. But, times were different back then, golf wasn't a huge money sport, and junior golf wasn't as ultra-competitive as it is today. With that level of competition, of course everyone is going to focus on everything that will give you an advantage. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Simpsonia

[vandyfan]

54 minutes ago, smashdn said:

JT yesterday stuck a 5w 255 from the first cut.

 

As a side note, the setup at TPC Craig Ranch this week was interesting. 3 of the par 5s were sub 530 yds which is shorter than the par 5s I play at my course which is only 6250 yds. Several driveable par 4s. The course was setup almost to play like a par 68. Regardless of distance, more and more weeks (outside of the majors and a few elevated events) seem to be setup to produce birdies. I mean, the 18th played 508 yards which will be a par 4 next week. It was almost like they were going BACKWARDS in terms of combating distance this week. Kind of a joke really but I guess it makes a compelling "entertainment product" if not a "test". 

[clevited]

29 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

You end talking about the difference between a 9i and a PW or between a GW and SW.  So yeah I agree that on the majority of holes there doesn't seem a compelling reason to attempt to drive it 330 when 315 will do just fine.

 

JT yesterday stuck a 5w 255 from the first cut.  Wiki says he is 5'10" 160lbs.  I don't know the answer.  Not sure if it is equipment or fitness or both. 

 

What I will say is that someone with more muscle mass, who is just as quick, and taller, should be able to, on occasion when the ball is struck pure, eclipse his distance.  But yet I see people fitting that bill, but single digit caps, not able to do it.  Even when the stars align for a person who I think we would say is well above an average golfer, that distance is not duplicated.

 

It isn't just the club left in, it is the fact that driving it 350 but potentially into a hazard isn't as appealing as driving it 320 and have a wedge in.  I have several holes at my home course where there are impossible to hit out of or even find your ball hazards left and right as well as long.  Get it wrong even just a little bit with a full nuke and its gone.  I play 5w or 3w off the tee on those holes usually.  That is from men's white tees though, from the tips I can nuke a driver with less worry and end up in a similar spot off the tee vs the whites.

 

As far as these big guys not hitting it as far as JT, I would say that is likely because they have some deficiency with their equipment set up.  They might have too much spin, or launch too low, or maybe they tend to hit low on the face, curve it too much or some other thing.  You can play good golf with a consistent miss hit.  Some guys hit heel cuts on purpose all the time.  It might even be that those guys purposefully use higher spinning or lower launching stuff because they can control it better.  More spin with a driver can be a good thing for control purposes, but won't help total distance much.  JT maximizes his numbers with his equipment generally speaking.

 

[clevited]

12 minutes ago, Simpsonia said:

 

That's because we're starting to see the fruits of a couple generations of kids raised on ultra-competitive golf from a young age. Kids who started golf that young, and were given comparative advantages of practice, coaching, etc were able to figure out how to swing as hard as physically possible but still hit the ball so very accurately. It's something that can only be learned as a kid. It's how someone like Rory (who is similarly statured 5'9", maybe 165lbs?) is one of the longest (#8 in distance) and is still very accurate (even at 115th in driving accuracy, it's only a ~12% difference in FIR vs #1). 

 

Edit: I guarantee you if stars of yesteryear were given the same advantages when they were kids, they'd be hitting it just as far. But, times were different back then, golf wasn't a huge money sport, and junior golf wasn't as ultra-competitive as it is today. With that level of competition, of course everyone is going to focus on everything that will give you an advantage. 

 

 

I would propose that some did have those advantages or self taught themselves that (Jack).  Jack swung hard, really hard.  Today, part of why there is parity is because there is parity in golf instruction to a much larger degree, and because a lot of men physically have the ability to swing fast, it just has to be unlocked with hard work which more and more people are realizing.  It is just much easier for a kid to learn it as they learn the sport than an established player to drop everything and sort of start over.  

[Titleist99]

4 hours ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

I don’t mind watching it, I do like that there seems to be more variety in who can compete, but the top level men do just about everything better on much harder setups, regardless of distance. I think the tournament yesterday has a lot of good examples of the problems, outside maybe 16 playing into the wind there were several 470+ par 4s and they were all hitting wedges and short irons. Even 502 was driver 9 iron. Granted it was hot and playing fast so you have to give credit for getting it in the fairway at that distance.

 

I do agree course design/selection is an issue, you can’t just make it longer, you have to make them think about it, seems like there was no risk to just blast away most holes. I don’t think I’d want to see them rolled back to ladies’ distances (longest hitter on the ladies’ tour would be bottom 10 on the PGA) but a slight dial back could make things more interesting.

Yet they were moving tees up.....Inticing players to go for it. The result of such moves by the tour enabled 15-20 players to have a chance to win with nine holes to go. The tour would rather have that kind of excitement than what ANGC had with Scheffler the only player in double digits and was able to four putt the last hole and still win......

[Titleist99]

47 minutes ago, blackbdmillsaps said:

 

As a side note, the setup at TPC Craig Ranch this week was interesting. 3 of the par 5s were sub 530 yds which is shorter than the par 5s I play at my course which is only 6250 yds. Several driveable par 4s. The course was setup almost to play like a par 68. Regardless of distance, more and more weeks (outside of the majors and a few elevated events) seem to be setup to produce birdies. I mean, the 18th played 508 yards which will be a par 4 next week. It was almost like they were going BACKWARDS in terms of combating distance this week. Kind of a joke really but I guess it makes a compelling "entertainment product" if not a "test". 

The pgatour is an entertainment business first and foremost......The announcers mentioned it several times, that the course was setup for a birdie fest........

[smashdn]

43 minutes ago, clevited said:

 

It isn't just the club left in, it is the fact that driving it 350 but potentially into a hazard isn't as appealing as driving it 320 and have a wedge in. 

 

 

I didn't think about holes like that as it seemed fairly intuitive that they would not take on that kind of risk.  Barring hazards and potential penalties, why aren't more players really uncorking drives if they are capable?  Still just the fear of the big miss?

[Titleist99]

Byron Nelson Tournament was exciting to the end, I didn't know who'd win it, right up to the last hole. Yet, posters whining about the low scoring and irons hit into the greens......go figure.

[clevited]

49 minutes ago, smashdn said:

 

I didn't think about holes like that as it seemed fairly intuitive that they would not take on that kind of risk.  Barring hazards and potential penalties, why aren't more players really uncorking drives if they are capable?  Still just the fear of the big miss?

 

Fear of big miss, and it isn't the percentage play.  It needs to be the right type of hole imo to just bomb it and not be concerned with what you are left with no matter how far you hit it.  It is also a matter sometimes of holding the green.  It is much easier to stop a full wedge out of the fairway or short rough for me at least, than it is a chip out of thick rough.  Bryson is trying to master the thick rough chip but we shall see over time if that is really that much better of a strategy than a full short iron or wedge from a tighter lie.   

 

Maybe you haven't seen the posts I put up addressing exactly this.  At the speeds someone like Bryson for instance can do, your miss gets amplified.  A baby draw for a short knocker is still in the fairway, a baby draw for a bomber could be in a hazard as it is in the air for longer, moves more off line and the effect of wind will be more apparent.  

 

Then there is the roll out.  The ball can land with a lot more speed depending on trajectory and bound forward much more than expected.  Case in point, I play white tees at my local club once and a while and I have to be very mindful of the club I use off the tee.  Even a swinging bunt fade can roll into the creek that splits the fairway 350 yards down.  It can get that much roll sometimes.  

 

2 of the 3 9s at my course have first holes where landing it 250 is safe and there is absolutely no worry of hitting into a hazard but anything beyond that you have hazard left, hazard right and hazard long.  A bad bounce is in the hazard.  Not even a robot can be sure of that.  The only thing you can do when you hit it really far is maybe have a miss area that nobody else would even dream to consider.  I have that on some holes so it sort of goes both ways.  If I get it wrong however, over cook a shot shape too much or miss hit it a little, that shot was now dumb of me to have tried.  Pro's generally don't worry about that.  They would need a lolipop on a stick for a club to make that a real consideration imo.

Edited May 16, 2022 by clevited

[TLUBulldogGolf]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

Yet they were moving tees up.....Inticing players to go for it. The result of such moves by the tour enabled 15-20 players to have a chance to win with nine holes to go. The tour would rather have that kind of excitement than what ANGC had with Scheffler the only player in double digits and was able to four putt the last hole and still win......

And yet the viewing audience for the Masters dwarfs this week. Sure there were a lot guys close but that tournament had no juice.

Edited May 16, 2022 by TLUBulldogGolf

[Titleist99]

19 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

And yet the viewing audience for the Masters dwarfs this week. Sure there were a lot guys close but that tournament had no juice.

You have the ratings for yesterday evening BN already? Great !, what were they?

-----------------------------

Just because the ratings were up 7% from the previous Masters by no means suggest that the excitement level match any before it.......IMO

[TLUBulldogGolf]

34 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

You have the ratings for yesterday evening BN already? Great !, what were they?

-----------------------------

Just because the ratings were up 7% from the previous Masters by no means suggest that the excitement level match any before it.......IMO

 

I expect quite a spike with Spieth in the hunt, but there's no way it touches the Masters numbers.

 

I just found there was no tension out there, it was just who could get to a certain number with little risks outside maybe 17. 

[Titleist99]

13 minutes ago, TLUBulldogGolf said:

 

I expect quite a spike with Spieth in the hunt, but there's no way it touches the Masters numbers.

 

I just found there was no tension out there, it was just who could get to a certain number with little risks outside maybe 17. 

Just goes to show you that excitement is judged differently by different viewers........that's why the pgatour plays a variety of courses with a variety of different styles.....

Edited May 16, 2022 by Titleist99

[smashdn]

2 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Byron Nelson Tournament was exciting to the end, I didn't know who'd win it, right up to the last hole. Yet, posters whining about the low scoring and irons hit into the greens......go figure.

 

Should be evidence that to the viewer it isn't always about score or hw many players can win it coming down the stretch.  Uninspiring shotmaking is uninspiring shotmaking whether one person is running away with the thing or 20 players are within a shot of the lead.

[clevited]

Doesn't the saying go something like, "Good Golf is Boring Golf"?  Entertainment is subjective and the tour is in the business of entertaining.  If they aren't providing a "measure of skill", or are creating "uninspiring golf" that is for them to decide based on the viewership and money to be made.  It isn't for the RBs to decide imo if pro golf is entertaining or not, or if it is a proper measure of skill.  Golf is golf.  It has always been about getting the ball into the hole with as few shots as possible.  I argue that the player that makes golf look easy, is displaying immense skill as that is very hard to do.  

 

I dislike comparing to other sports but to create a visual for what I am trying to say, in bowling, if you are striking every shot you make it look easy and like no talent is needed.  You just blindly throw the ball the same way each time and you get a 300.  That is simply not true.  You not only have to control how you throw your ball each time, you have to adjust to the ever changing lanes and you have to adjust right.  They make it look easy, but it is far from it.  Golf is no different.  They make it look easy when their game plan works out and they basically don't screw up, but they make it look really hard when they have to manufacture shots around or over trouble.

 

It seems to me roll backers basically want to see players not able to ever execute their game plan and be forced to complicate their game beyond what they worked hard to achieve.  Essentially, it feels like roll backers want every player to have to lay up to the inside of a dogleg bend 200 yards out from a par 4 and bend a long iron around the corner and roll it up to 3 feet from the hole.  That isn't the percentage play in golf and guys go to great lengths to make sure their misses don't put them in that situation.  They sure as heck work on that shot though so that they have it if they need it, and you will see that the top guys pull those shots off more often than the rest when they need them.  It just won't need to happen very often and by design though imo. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by clevited

[buckeyefl]

7 hours ago, Maximilian said:

I don't want them to roll anything back just because I would enjoy watching the pros hit the ball shorter. I want them to do it so they can continue to play a lot of interesting courses which will sooner or later be replaced because the playing area is too small.

 

Watching the PGA Tour is still fun, but look at what they are doing to those courses to keep them relevant. There really aren't that many courses out there that are both interesting to watch the highest level tackel, and still able manage the infrastructure. If you watch golf on the levels below the PGA Tour, they are having a really hard time finding adequate courses now. The players on top of those leaderboard totally destroy those courses and the winning scores are usually incredibly low. Sure, the best player wins and we get to see how truly amazing these guys are, but it really isn't that entertaining to watch, at least for me. If we did nothing to the current PGA Tour courses and nothing to the equipment, that's what the PGA Tour would soon look like.

 

But as long as they continue to build new, very large courses, or continue to expand and remodel current courses, it's fine. Just seems totally unnecessary to me. Plus I think it's a shame for the great courses that will no longer be relevant because they can't expand them more or can't afford to remodel them.

 

And for the record, I'm not saying a golf course needs to be very long to be entertaining. Look at the 10th at Riviera, very entertaining! But unfortunately most courses don't have a lot of interesting holes like that were length doesn't matter much. More often they were designed in a way that tried to make them interesting, but unfortunately because of how long the guys hit it today, just isn't very interesting anymore. And a whole course with only short, tricky holes like the 10th at Riviera would probably not be much fun in the long run either.

 

My 2 cents. 🙃

None of it is necessary they have just chosen that route and some people who consider themselves the overseers of tradition jump on board and make ridiculous comparisons and assertions. The interesting courses aren't going anywhere. Course set up is king.

[vandyfan]

3 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Byron Nelson Tournament was exciting to the end, I didn't know who'd win it, right up to the last hole. Yet, posters whining about the low scoring and irons hit into the greens......go figure.

 

Oh I am actually just using it for nefarious reasons and as fuel to tell other golfers that they should be playing tees that are farther UP rather than farther BACK. Look, [insert name], the best players in the world that hit it 70 yards past you off the tee are playing par 5s from 510 yards and here you are playing a 580 yd par 5. That seems silly doesn't it? I wonder how many tour players complained "it's boring hitting driver/wedge into every green" or "I didn't get to use all of the clubs in my bag" or, my personal favorite "the landing zones are actually HARDER from the more forward tees." 

[Barfolomew]

How do the pros feel about the distance debate??

 

Its all relative as we know.... but bombers can prob put more % of practice time towards wedge then short knockers..... which might seem not a big deal but after 1000s of hours might be

[Titleist99]

2 hours ago, blackbdmillsaps said:

 

Oh I am actually just using it for nefarious reasons and as fuel to tell other golfers that they should be playing tees that are farther UP rather than farther BACK. Look, [insert name], the best players in the world that hit it 70 yards past you off the tee are playing par 5s from 510 yards and here you are playing a 580 yd par 5. That seems silly doesn't it? I wonder how many tour players complained "it's boring hitting driver/wedge into every green" or "I didn't get to use all of the clubs in my bag" or, my personal favorite "the landing zones are actually HARDER from the more forward tees." 

Only on Golfwrx, only on Golfwrx....... The Pros know the name of the game is to get it in the hole as quick as possible. (LOL!)

[farmer]

I enjoyed the birdie fest.  Lot's of guys in the hunt, birdie holes abound, great entertainment.  I wonder if the tour made this one easy, for the shock coming this week.  

[Titleist99]

5 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

Should be evidence that to the viewer it isn't always about score or hw many players can win it coming down the stretch.  Uninspiring shotmaking is uninspiring shotmaking whether one person is running away with the thing or 20 players are within a shot of the lead.

Never once has anyone mentioned to me that they were inspired by the shot making of a player..... all the shots that matter are memorialized by a plaque somewhere on the golf course..  Tiger Maybe.

Edited May 17, 2022 by Titleist99

[So_Cal]

3 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Never once has anyone mentioned to me that they were inspired by the shot making of a player..... all the shots that matter are memorialized by a Plack somewhere on the golf course..  Tiger Maybe.

Probably the most famous plaque is Hogan’s one iron into the par 4 18th at Merion, yes a par 4 requiring a long iron shot.  They probably wouldn’t have put “flip wedge” on the plaque if that’s all he had in.  JMO