aaron_lohan
New
And that would be bad?
Athletic Golf vs. Powder-Puff Golf?
- Thread starter aaron_lohan
- Start date
- Status
And that would be bad?
Deadly_Scope
New
Yes it would.
Courses should be set-up that people have to give the ball a semi-decent whack instead of a wee tap.
Do you not want golf to be an athletic sport? Perhaps you want to demote it to a game. What's next - maybe they should allow those golf clubs that you press a button and the ball pings off the face?
aaron_lohan
New
Who cares about distance when you win 6 majors and are the record points scorer in the ryder cup?
Faldo stats in 1992
Driving Distance 263yards Rank 70th
Driving accuracy 81.9% rank 2nd
Total Driving rank 5th
So Faldo wasn't as short as you think. But i suspect you want courses to be set up 8000 yards and have fairways the width of driving ranges.
Deadly_Scope
New
The point is that he should never have been allowed to win 6 majors in that fashion. They would of been more successful Faldo-proofing courses than Tiger-proofing them.
Wow a whole 263 yards!
jeffgladchun
New
Professional golf isn't about this or that, it's about winning. Period. Winning.
Faldo won 6 majors playing one way, others have won playing a different way.
Winning.
Faldo won 6 majors playing one way, others have won playing a different way.
Winning.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Faldo won on long courses in shitty weather (Muirfield) wide open birdie fests (St. Andrews), power courses (3 Masters) and almost won 2 US Opens.
You have one very weird perspective on this guy but its a free country.
You have one very weird perspective on this guy but its a free country.
rogerdodger
New
Pretty funny exchange yesterday in the telecast from Aronomink. Faldo commented he went thru a talk to himself before he hit a shot. Feherty said well you had to talk to somebody. Pretty good dig at Nick. I watched Faldo play in 2002 at the PGA championship. He was with most of the golfers off the tee, no noticeable distance issues on a pretty long course. He was really straight off the tee.
Deadly_Scope
New
I recently watched tennis on TV and was really amazed throughout the whole Wimbledon tournament with their fitness, speed, agility and stamina. The players were fit and they had to be super fit to even be competitive in their arena.
Now look at golf even to this day. As athletes, they are nowhere in the same league as tennis players. They might be a little bit fitter and stronger than your average Joe but by any stretch of the imagination, they are definitely not athletes or at least not athletes on the level of other sports (with some occasional exceptions...ie Tiger Woods).
I want to see golf as a sport played by athletes, not tip tapping your way around a golf course. Anyone can be accurate hitting it like a bacla but it takes someone that's good at this game to hit it pretty hard and well controlled it at the same time.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
Faldo was on par with the best British Olympians in numerous stamina, strength and flexibility tests. Greg Norman was in fantastic condition and played competitive rugby. Nicklaus was recruited for basketball at Ohio State. Ernie Els was a nationally ranked tennis player. Fred Couples turned down a minor leauge baseball contract. Anthony Kim was an all around athlete in high school. Jim Thorpe played semi pro football.
What do you want to do? Change the physical requirements to play the game? Until they make 9000 yd courses, make you run between shots, check your opponents blindside and jump over hazards, most Tour guys are athletic enough, coordinated enough and strong enough to play the game at the highest level. I would agree that more of an athletic pedigree would help these guys be tougher and better winners but i guess im not understanding the point you're making.
Is everyone who doesnt swing 125mph a dink and a scrap athlete?
What do you want to do? Change the physical requirements to play the game? Until they make 9000 yd courses, make you run between shots, check your opponents blindside and jump over hazards, most Tour guys are athletic enough, coordinated enough and strong enough to play the game at the highest level. I would agree that more of an athletic pedigree would help these guys be tougher and better winners but i guess im not understanding the point you're making.
Is everyone who doesnt swing 125mph a dink and a scrap athlete?
I think you made a great point in describing the differences between golf and the "run and jump" sports. You don't have to be super fit to succeed in golf; it's a sport where the ratio of skill to athleticism is tipped in favor of skill. Because of that, while better and better athletes are playing the game, the overall athleticism of the best players isn't going to increase at the same rate as it does in other sports, because it dosen't really have to.
That said, we're starting to see the guys that Phil and Tiger said were coming; basically, long drive guys with a high level of skill and touch to go with the stupid length. There are going to be more super-long guys coming out and doing well. In that way, you'll get your wish, Matthew. But because golf is so skill dominated, you'll still see the "athletically inferior" players doing well, like Miyazato.
But one thing is the same for golf in other sports; take two players who are similarly skilled and who are playing at the same level, and the more explosive athlete will usually have the advantage.
Deadly Scope’s argument against Miyazato’s swing is why I love golf! Athleticism is great for sure. But, the essence of the game is still “golfer against the course.” Course management skills and playing to one’s strengths is paramount to success. A kid from my club just finished runner up by one stroke in the Dogwood Invitational at Druid Hills Golf Club in Atlanta. He shot at 19 under. Druid Hills is a short, tight course. This kid is 145 lbs. soaking wet. He very rarely misses the center of the fairway, has incredible distance control with his irons, and is a magician with the putter. He is routinely outdriven by most of his opponents. Nonetheless, he plays his own game, and his mind is like a steel trap. Could he use more distance? Sure. Would he trade his course management, short game skill, and precise distance control for more distance? I doubt it.
It's a scoring game how you get it done and how you look getting it done is of no consequence. You can look like Moe Norman or Sam Snead and all that matters is your score card. If your the slowest in foot speed and are overweight but can stripe it and putt it and score who cares. If i want to see all of the other stuff i watch the Olympics.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Well....
With all due respect, Dustin Johnson could dunk on Rafael Nadal.
I don't disagree with what you are saying Mathew, in fact, all these limited pivot method theories make me want to gag.
Give me Jamie Sadlowski's pivot.
Golf is going that way, and I guess we'll both be happy, Mathew.
BTW, I love Kevin Shields like a brother, but I never liked Nick Faldo's swing that much.
With all due respect, Dustin Johnson could dunk on Rafael Nadal.
I don't disagree with what you are saying Mathew, in fact, all these limited pivot method theories make me want to gag.
Give me Jamie Sadlowski's pivot.
Golf is going that way, and I guess we'll both be happy, Mathew.
BTW, I love Kevin Shields like a brother, but I never liked Nick Faldo's swing that much.
Chip Putterman
New
There are a lot of good swingers on the PGA Tour, and I'm not just talking Tiger's social life. But it is low scores that win tournaments. Both Ai Miyazato and Sir Nick Faldo won tournaments by scoring low. And at the end of the day...that's all that matters.
Brian - can you describe some of the things you didn't like in Nick's swing please? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. I liked his swing but could never ever do the early wrist setting thing he and Lead preferred.
As an aside - anyone who actually witnessed Faldo play - remember it was in the days of Balata and wooden woods - would never say he was short. Shorter than the greats of the time like Norman and Woosie but plenty long compared to most pro's. Seeing him hit a 2 iron was something else.
Richie3Jack
New
I don’t get too bogged down into arguments of whether or not PGA Tour golfers are ‘athletes’ or whether or not golf is a ‘sport.’ Mainly because it’s not going to get me to stop from playing the game and watching it on TV and marveling at the ability of these guys out there.
I think golf is a sport though and I think PGA Tour players are certainly athletes. Put them in an NFL combine test, most would finish horribly. But, put them in a specialized combine test based on total body flexibility and hand-eye coordination and timing, I think they would do quite well and the NFL player would do poorly.
Ivan Lendl retired from tennis and had been an avid golfer before he retired. He then tried to make the mini-tour circuit to one day become a PGA Tour pro and he couldn’t break 75. And he wasn’t long off the tee either.
My problem with lengthening courses to some absurd amount is that they make the game much less compelling to watch and even play. I feel that for tournament golf, the course should be set up so that pretty much any style of golfer can win the tournament and the eventual winner will be the golfer who plays best at their given style and putts well enough to win. Bombers should be rewarded if they can find some fairways and hit it no further off than the 2nd cut of the rough. But they shouldn’t be rewarded just because they hit it long, no matter where it goes. Save that for the Re-MAX championship during the holidays.
One of the greatest beauties I find in this game is that there are so many ways to skin a cat. From different swings to hit the ball effectively, to different putting strokes to putt effectively and from different styles of play to shoot low scores. I don’t understand why people want to change that.
3JACK
I think golf is a sport though and I think PGA Tour players are certainly athletes. Put them in an NFL combine test, most would finish horribly. But, put them in a specialized combine test based on total body flexibility and hand-eye coordination and timing, I think they would do quite well and the NFL player would do poorly.
Ivan Lendl retired from tennis and had been an avid golfer before he retired. He then tried to make the mini-tour circuit to one day become a PGA Tour pro and he couldn’t break 75. And he wasn’t long off the tee either.
My problem with lengthening courses to some absurd amount is that they make the game much less compelling to watch and even play. I feel that for tournament golf, the course should be set up so that pretty much any style of golfer can win the tournament and the eventual winner will be the golfer who plays best at their given style and putts well enough to win. Bombers should be rewarded if they can find some fairways and hit it no further off than the 2nd cut of the rough. But they shouldn’t be rewarded just because they hit it long, no matter where it goes. Save that for the Re-MAX championship during the holidays.
One of the greatest beauties I find in this game is that there are so many ways to skin a cat. From different swings to hit the ball effectively, to different putting strokes to putt effectively and from different styles of play to shoot low scores. I don’t understand why people want to change that.
3JACK
I found it interesting that the knee jerk reaction to protect the courses and take away the big hitter's advantage was to make the courses even longer, which only gave them a bigger advantage. Kind of reminds me of the talk going around about raising the rims in the NBA to 11' or so, when Shaq was at the height of his powers; who'd have it easier, the freak 7-footer, or everyone else?
I've often wondered how you can make a course tougher for everyone equally. It seems that with most of the things that you would do to toughen a golf course, the bigger hitter has an advantage (if they're playing well) . Even if you do something like narrow the landing areas at 315-340, they're hitting an easier-to-hit 3w or even hybrid where some of these other guys are hitting driver. And if you put their balls down in the exact same spot, they're still 1-3 clubs longer with the irons, and they can create a higher trajectory and higher spin because of the higher speed, giving them an advantage on harder-to-stop greens. A big hitter with a great short game who is on his game will always be tough to beat. Anything you do to trick out the course increases that advantage. The equalizer seems to be that it's tough to be a top 10-20 golfer and be a freak distance-wise. The margin for error seems to be so much smaller when you're creating that much speed (125-130+ mph).
rogerdodger
New
Hard to argue Aronomink was not that course. Wide fairways, tough greens, nice balance of long and short holes. Big requirement of accurate iron shots. Top twenty had a great mix of big hitters like Holmes and control players too. Really impressive golf course.
Richie3Jack
New
If the long bombers don't like the tighter courses, they are still hitting much less off the tee and on the approach than the shorter, but more accurate drivers of the ball. So the advantage should still be there, they just need to execute and have patience.
There's the rub.
But when you lengthen a course and make it wide open, all of the advantage shifts to the bombers. Nick Faldo won those majors because he could strike all of his clubs in his bag consistently and accurately and was a great putter, negating any disadvantage that he had with his short length off the tee. He won because he was simply the best overall player at a time when most of the courses didn't overly favor any style of player. If we just overly lengthened golf courses in the past, there would be no Ben Hogan or Lee Trevino and instead we'd be talking about Mike Souchak.
3JACK
- Status