Bubba turning Doral into a pitch and putt..

[Tball88]

I'm not one of those old school guys who believes everyone should be hitting persimmons, balata balls, and old school blades, but damn, Bubba is making Doral look like a 5000 yd course. Almost driving par fours, hitting wedges into par 5's, crazy..

I'm not sure what the answer is, i guess maybe 8000 yard courses.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I'm not one of those old school guys who believes everyone should be hitting persimmons, balata balls, and old school blades, but damn, Bubba is making Doral look like a 5000 yd course. Almost driving par fours, hitting wedges into par 5's, crazy..

I'm not sure what the answer is, i guess maybe 8000 yard courses.

Nah. Very high and thick rough and tight fairways. Otherwise these morons would destroy every possible of exisiting historical courses.

What's Watson's FIR, by the way ? More than 50% ?

Cheers

 

[Bigwill]

If this were everybody, then I'd say that there's a reason to worry. But Bubba's silly long, and he's on. The average pro is close to 10 mph slower than this guy and the few others like him, so I don't see a need to move to 8,000 yard courses. You'd just end up catering to the big hitters anyway...

 

[duckjr78]

Nah. Very high and thick rough and tight fairways. Otherwise these morons would destroy every possible of exisiting historical courses.

What's Watson's FIR, by the way ? More than 50% ?

Cheers

42.9% fwiw

Dariuz, do you get excited when Mark Wilson wins an event?

 

[Tball88]

He's hitting 59% of fairways for the season, and doing better this weekend. It's just been amazing to me, how many pw,sw, and lw he has into greens. I mean literally on some of these par fours he's hitting little pitch shots..

 

[Dariusz J.]

42.9% fwiw

Dariuz, do you get excited when Mark Wilson wins an event?

43% -- I thought so.

I get excited whenever a true ballstriking artist wins, not a whooper. No matter what is his name. Control is the name of the game, not length. If someone gets excited with length -- there are ReMAX championships every year.

Cheers

 

[dschultz6072]

There's always the tradeoff between length and accuracy. Obviously he can still score and can get up and down when he chooses to err more on the length side. Don't be HATIN.

 

[magicmarker]

Nah. Very high and thick rough and tight fairways. Otherwise these morons would destroy every possible of exisiting historical courses.

What's Watson's FIR, by the way ? More than 50% ?

Cheers

If you wanna hate the courses and the setup that's fine. But you shouldn't be calling someone who figured out how to win on the pga tour without ever taking a lesson a 'moron', it makes you sound kinda moronic IMO. Hate on the game, not those who have to find a way to win out there.

 

[Dariusz J.]

There's always the tradeoff between length and accuracy. Obviously he can still score and can get up and down when he chooses to err more on the length side. Don't be HATIN.

The point is that nowadays there is no alternative -- whack the ball as long as possible is the best option. If the conditions were severe he (and others long guys) would have a real alternative -- to risk and to have a wedge to the green as the 2nd (and prolly a birdie or easy par) or to have a wedge out to the fairway as the 2nd (and prolly a bogey or easy double).

If you wanna hate the courses and the setup that's fine. But you shouldn't be calling someone who figured out how to win on the pga tour without ever taking a lesson a 'moron', it makes you sound kinda moronic IMO. Hate on the game, not those who have to find a way to win out there.

You misunderstood me completely -- or it is me and my English. I defend old setup and call 'morons' those who decide to destroy original setup and lengthen historic courses. Lengthening courses is changing the original project, i.e. often destroying the intent of the architects.

Cheers

 

[duckjr78]

The point is that nowadays there is no alternative -- whack the ball as long as possible is the best option. If the conditions were severe he (and others long guys) would have a real alternative -- to risk and to have a wedge to the green as the 2nd (and prolly a birdie or easy par) or to have a wedge out to the fairway as the 2nd (and prolly a bogey or easy double).



You misunderstood me completely -- or it is me and my English. I defend old setup and call 'morons' those who decide to destroy original setup and lengthen historic courses. Lengthening courses is changing the original project, i.e. often destroying the intent of the architects.

Cheers

Guys, you have to remember, the old pros walked uphill in the snow in 120° heat to school, both ways.

Dariuz, please. Better athletes create more fast twitch muscle. They jump higher, run faster, and swing sticks faster. Bubba's clubface control has to be better than the shorter (& straighter?) hitters you so obviously adore, otherwise he would hit drives OB all day long and wouldn't be on tour. If Corey Pavin's clubface is off by 2 degrees, he is still in the fairway. Bubba, not so much. So technically, Bubba is just as, or more, accurate than the short hitters.

Grow your rough and tighten your fairways. Bubba will hit as many fairways with his 4 wood as Mark Wilson will with his driver. And he will be just as long. And when they both hit it in the rough, Bubba will have the speed to advance the ball and Wilson will not. Advantage still Bubba.

Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Norman, Woods. All VERY long for their day. All top 10-15 players of all time. How long is your list of accurate golfers?

You just sound childish with your never ending soap box. Methinks perhaps you are not a very long hitter yourself and therefore you are drinking the Hater-ade. Pity. You do add a good bit to the forum, but it always devolves into you rant about why long hitters aren't as good.

PS. I just use Bubba's name due to the thread. Feel free to substitute the name of whichever long hitter you prefer.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Guys, you have to remember, the old pros walked uphill in the snow in 120° heat to school, both ways.

Dariuz, please. Better athletes create more fast twitch muscle. They jump higher, run faster, and swing sticks faster. Bubba's clubface control has to be better than the shorter (& straighter?) hitters you so obviously adore, otherwise he would hit drives OB all day long and wouldn't be on tour. If Corey Pavin's clubface is off by 2 degrees, he is still in the fairway. Bubba, not so much. So technically, Bubba is just as, or more, accurate than the short hitters.

Grow your rough and tighten your fairways. Bubba will hit as many fairways with his 4 wood as Mark Wilson will with his driver. And he will be just as long. And when they both hit it in the rough, Bubba will have the speed to advance the ball and Wilson will not. Advantage still Bubba.

Jones, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Watson, Norman, Woods. All VERY long for their day. All top 10-15 players of all time. How long is your list of accurate golfers?

You just sound childish with your never ending soap box. Methinks perhaps you are not a very long hitter yourself and therefore you are drinking the Hater-ade. Pity. You do add a good bit to the forum, but it always devolves into you rant about why long hitters aren't as good.

PS. I just use Bubba's name due to the thread. Feel free to substitute the name of whichever long hitter you prefer.

Please. Always the same arguments over and over. I think you do not understand the idea of sports. There are sport disciplines basing on, what you call it, fast twitch muscles and there are where only technique matters. Golf (as well as quite a big number of sports) is a mixture of both.
Let's say this way, if you want examples -- Pavin or Funk (short but accurate hitters) will have pros and cons. Pros are not losing a stroke or two from real rough, while cons are necessity of using longer clubs after drives. Now, a real competition is if a long player has its day, risks and hits lots of fairways, such Pavins and Funks will never win. It is very fair. If a long hitter has a day off and hits 2 or 3 fairways only, he has no right to win. It is fair as well. Nowadays only the first scenario of the two is real which makes golf unfair.

Hogans and Nicklauses were long but also were accurate. Otherwise Souchacks would take a few majors. But it did not happen because they were more often in rough than on fairways.

Lastly, I can assure you that I can hit long. I was excited to count how many drives I hit over 300 meters before. But, when I read old books and articles about golf as a game of accuracy and control, I'd swap my longest drives for 100% FIR.
Do not judge someone if you know nothing about him/her. A good advice for a future.

Cheers

 

[Tball88]

I'm not sure bubba does win if you grow the rough up. I mean you're assuming Bubba is extremely accurate with his four wood, I'm not so sure that's the case. I watched Dustin and Bubba closely at Pebble and they were missing greens badly, even with wedges.

I think higher rough and tighter fairways would definately cater to the more accurate golfers. Harbor Town and the Colonial are two excellent examples. Take a look at their winners, guys like Toms, Stricker, Johnson, Snedeker, Gay, Furyk, are the last six winners. Long players have won there, Phil, Kenny Perry, Boo, but the shorter guys seem to excel more on the tighter courses. I don't know that Bubba or Dustin have ever done well at either track. I've heard a lot of the long guys won't even play Harbor Town.

 

[duckjr78]

Please. Always the same arguments over and over. I think you do not understand the idea of sports. There are sport disciplines basing on, what you call it, fast twitch muscles and there are where only technique matters. Golf (as well as quite a big number of sports) is a mixture of both.
Let's say this way, if you want examples -- Pavin or Funk (short but accurate hitters) will have pros and cons. Pros are not losing a stroke or two from real rough, while cons are necessity of using longer clubs after drives. Now, a real competition is if a long player has its day, risks and hits lots of fairways, such Pavins and Funks will never win. It is very fair. If a long hitter has a day off and hits 2 or 3 fairways only, he has no right to win. It is fair as well. Nowadays only the first scenario of the two is real which makes golf unfair.

Hogans and Nicklauses were long but also were accurate. Otherwise Souchacks would take a few majors. But it did not happen because they were more often in rough than on fairways.

Lastly, I can assure you that I can hit long. I was excited to count how many drives I hit over 300 meters before. But, when I read old books and articles about golf as a game of accuracy and control, I'd swap my longest drives for 100% FIR.
Do not judge someone if you know nothing about him/her. A good advice for a future.

Cheers

1. Bubba is making his birdies on par 4's from the fairway and is hitting more than 2-3 fairways per round. Long hitters who hit 3 fairways per round don't win tournaments. A great round here or there, maybe. But not tourneys. Sorry, you are wrong.

2. Souchak was accurate, otherwise he wouldn't have been on tour. Hogan and Nicklaus had this thing called a short game. Your argument is that long and accurate wins. I say long and short game wins. Sorry, IMHO, you are wrong again.

3. I do know something about you, so, I will judge what I know. You hit it over 300 metres, eh? Numerous times? Let's see, that is 330 yards, right? Hmm. Let's say a healthy average amount of roll for a perfectly hit drive is 30 yards. So you have carried the ball in the air 300+ yards many times? That takes a swing speed that would be, what 117 mph or so with perfectly optimized launch conditions according to Flightscope. That would put you way up there on the PGA Tour. I call shenanigans. I guess the internetz really does add 15 yards. Or more like 30.

Sorry, big D, but I just happen to disagree with you and your diatribe gets old. Golf is a sport. And in sports (not games like darts and billiards) a good big man always beats a good little man.

BTW, Donald, Kuchar, and Z. Johnson are on the leaderboard so I guess the course is set up fairly.

 

[Tball88]

yaras we speak, bubba missing fairways early and has already lost the lead.

I actually don't mind length, big hitters who are accurate should always have an advantage. I do like the idea of graduated rough, where the further you miss the more you're penalized. It gets kind of silly when guys blast it into anothe fairway, miss their shot by 50-60 yards and don't get penalized, but I guess that's golf.

 

[duckjr78]

yaras we speak, bubba missing fairways early and has already lost the lead.

I actually don't mind length, big hitters who are accurate should always have an advantage. I do like the idea of graduated rough, where the further you miss the more you're penalized. It gets kind of silly when guys blast it into anothe fairway, miss their shot by 50-60 yards and don't get penalized, but I guess that's golf.

I am all for graduated rough. Nothing irks me as much as when Tiger would blow it 30 yards offline only to hear the announcers say "That's actually a good break, the rough is all trampled down there....."

And Bubba missing fairways and losing the lead proves my point. Dariuz is the one saying the big hitters can miss all but 3 fairways and still win.

 

[Dariusz J.]

1. Bubba is making his birdies on par 4's from the fairway and is hitting more than 2-3 fairways per round. Long hitters who hit 3 fairways per round don't win tournaments. A great round here or there, maybe. But not tourneys. Sorry, you are wrong.

OK, I've exagerrated with these 2 or 3 fairways. But as we see now and saw before, sometimess less than 50% FIR is enough to win which is ridiculous.

2. Souchak was accurate, otherwise he wouldn't have been on tour. Hogan and Nicklaus had this thing called a short game. Your argument is that long and accurate wins. I say long and short game wins. Sorry, IMHO, you are wrong again.

No, it is you who's wrong. Nicklaus had great short game ? Hogan had ? Souchak was accurate ?
I think you need to learn more about history of golf and old champs.

3. I do know something about you, so, I will judge what I know. You hit it over 300 metres, eh? Numerous times? Let's see, that is 330 yards, right? Hmm. Let's say a healthy average amount of roll for a perfectly hit drive is 30 yards. So you have carried the ball in the air 300+ yards many times? That takes a swing speed that would be, what 117 mph or so with perfectly optimized launch conditions according to Flightscope. That would put you way up there on the PGA Tour. I call shenanigans. I guess the internetz really does add 15 yards. Or more like 30.

When did I say it all ? Again, stop saying bullshit about me or I will stop being nice. FYI, I hit in my life three (3) times drives over 300 meters and it was measured. So, I know exactly how it was. The majority of my drives were about 240-250 meters long. Now they are 220-230 m on the average because all swing changes (also in my clubs) I made according to my theories I did not give a crap about distance and I preferred to lose 30 meters and be more accurate. Give me such a pussy light graphite driver like you probably hit and I can hit the ball 270-280 meters at least once if I have 6 attempts like on ReMAX without any training just now. My highest clubhead SS measured was 123 mph with a 47.5" long light driver some years ago. Now it is in 100-105 mph range with a 43.5" steel shaft heavy MOI driver.
Did you know this all about me ? No. So stop guessing and saying jibberish around, please. It is enough to ask, I have no mysteries and am not afraid to tell the truth, opposite to some anonymous fora members everywhere.

Sorry, big D, but I just happen to disagree with you and your diatribe gets old. Golf is a sport. And in sports (not games like darts and billiards) a good big man always beats a good little man.

Again, it proves how ignorant you are as regards the idea of sports in general, alas. Even in stricte power sports not only strongest or biggest ones win. There are numerous examples on this. Technique often compensate lack of power and sometimes happen than a good small guy beats a good big one. Otherwise I wouldn't watch sports because it was so predictable and boring.
BTW, big guys (and I am not a small guy, so I know what I am talking about) often are like cripples in comparison to a healthy smooth small guy.

I am done with the discussion now.

Cheers

 

[duckjr78]

Taking your ball and going home, eh?

I was wrong about short game, as I was including putting in that. Jack was an excellent putter. Hogan was accurate. I don't have any stats for Souchak, so I'll differ to you due to your age. Basically we sort of agree to disagree on this one.

For the record, I said no "bullshit" about you. I simply said that I did not believe you making it sound like you routinely sent the ball out there 330+ yards. After I called you on it, all of the sudden it's only three times in your life. Now that makes more sense.

And you admit that you are now a short hitter, so I was correct in my first assesment. I guess I do know you a bit better than you want to admit. Whether you became a short hitter by choice or whatever makes no difference to me. You, a short hitter, have a disdain for pros (people?) who hit it a long way. Simple as that.

And it is you, buddy, who doesn't understand sports. Name me one sport, defined by power, speed, strength, etc. where a small athlete has an advantage over a large athlete with identical skill. American football, nope. Basketball, nope. Baseball, nope. Hockey, nope. Boxing (where the saying I used originated), no way. MMA, sorry again, nope. Track & field, uh-uh. Skiing, no. Cricket, no sir. Soccer, not at all.

Can anyone help Dariuz out here and name one sport where a contest between two athletes with identical skill levels will be won the majority of the time by the smaller of said athletes? Other than the sport of "sneaking through small spaces," I can't think of one.

 

[duckjr78]

Wait, I thought of one. Women's gymnastics. Larger athletes don't do as well in that sport.

 

[Jared Willerson]

I like it when Bubba plays well. I like it when Mark Wilson plays well. I appreciate all different make ups of skill sets that can be successful on Tour.

The best ball striker does not mean best golfer, the best short game does not mean best golfer, the best putter does not mean best golfer. However the best make up of all three, some being more strong in one area than others, makes the best golfer.

Success is being able to play all the games within the game during a round or rounds of golf. It is what makes golf maddening but also a truly sublime test of overall skill.

 

[duckjr78]

I like it when Bubba plays well. I like it when Mark Wilson plays well. I appreciate all different make ups of skill sets that can be successful on Tour.

The best ball striker does not mean best golfer, the best short game does not mean best golfer, the best putter does not mean best golfer. However the best make up of all three, some being more strong in one area than others, makes the best golfer.

Success is being able to play all the games within the game during a round or rounds of golf. It is what makes golf maddening but also a truly sublime test of overall skill.

Well said good sir.