Euro Tour

[Dariusz J.]

Still love to hear it, Dariusz...

I'm not sure why we wouldn't like it. I have my theories as well. You could be right in your opinion.

Oliver, you have no chance to remember it but Kevin has - my big picture explanation about Woods from one year back or so:

"Harmon had a relatively easy job - probably just to correct some microscale issues with young Tiger's amateur motion aimed at achieving the best release of kinetic chain without thinking that always is a qui pro quo. He just let the general principles of his swing go without paying any attention that his TSP shaft angle during the downswing is not what the best ballstrikers did. Either max distance or max precision. Young Woods chose the first since his body was young enough and his clubs forgiving enough to offset the general tendency of breaking pivot early and throwing arms too much in front. Harmon and noone else paid any attention that he destroys his lead knee joint because of jumping with his lead foot off the ground and stumping down to a rotated knee with all dynamic power. This is how kids swing since they want to hit the ball far. Leading with hips leaving upper body closed - a big kinetic disproportion between hips and shoulders.
Then, his knee problems appeared. Haney proposed an unreal (but theoretically very appealing) concept of congruent angles. Unfortunately, for him and his pupil, this concept could be valid for Iron Byron and not a living biped. The more hips are open (which is a proper thing for a biped aiming at killing the ball) the more he needed to be laid off to match parallel planes principles. Read: even more compensations. He needed to tame his hips while still throwing arms in front of the body - still 2-way miss and timing problems.
Foley brought flexion/extension problems in the name of saving his knee. The result, that was easy to predict is that Woods started to jump off his shoes again and his knee will suffer a lot. Instead letting the lead leg be passive during the backswing and bend inside in the knee joint (even if his lead foot rolls to the inside and the heel comes off the ground) he picked up some silly S&T concept of footwork that no previous great ballstrikers ever did before. What is even more funny, Tiger's stance practically did not improve from Haney's times - still parallel without any diagonality - while Haney had no choice with his flawed concept (vide: Iron Byron), now it should have been immediately abandoned as the first thing."



In short - too much TM numbers and geometry talking while being totally ignorant in biophysics, mainly anatomy.

Cheers

 

[jpvegas1]

If I remember correctly from a thread earlier this year, Brian did not worked with Robert Rock on his swing, but talked with him extensively about the D-plane and Robert sent him a thank-you not after winning the Italian Open.

 

[Burner]

R.R was (self) cited today in his victory speech as a M.O.R.A.D man currently coached in the UK by Matt Belsham. He recently had some short game coaching from European Seniors Tour Player, Zimbabwean Tony Johnson.

However, I too remember that earlier phone call(?) with BManz stuff.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I have just checked the stats from this tournament and whoever said that Rock's tee-to-green game was outstanding was simply wrong - he had 51.8 % of FIR ! Only a bit better than Woods who is a "master" in this stats ROFL. But seen also that there were "tour professionalists" that achieved FiR below 40 % !
It is plainly laughable. And media will repeat that we should admire these guys. Unbelievable. They have already weakened the spirit of the game to the limit. Soon they will kill it once and for all when generations that remember real golf pass away.

Cheers

 

[dschultz6072]

I have just checked the stats from this tournament and whoever said that Rock's tee-to-green game was outstanding was simply wrong - he had 51.8 % of FIR ! Only a bit better than Woods who is a "master" in this stats ROFL. But seen also that there were "tour professionalists" that achieved FiR below 40 % !
It is plainly laughable. And media will repeat that we should admire these guys. Unbelievable. They have already weakened the spirit of the game to the limit. Soon they will kill it once and for all when generations that remember real golf pass away.

Cheers

It looked like it was impossible to not hit the ball into fairway bunkers. And even if the fairways were missed, it was literally by a few feet most of the time. Most of the missed fairways were the ball just trickling into the sand. Side note, it didn't look like they were afraid of the bunkers at all. The rough was a different story though.

That's my view of the tourney. It looked as if everyone was missing fairways and greens. Rory especially. Not excusing it, just saying.

 

[Dariusz J.]

It looked like it was impossible to not hit the ball into fairway bunkers. And even if the fairways were missed, it was literally by a few feet most of the time. Most of the missed fairways were the ball just trickling into the sand. Side note, it didn't look like they were afraid of the bunkers at all. The rough was a different story though.

That's my view of the tourney. It looked as if everyone was missing fairways and greens. Rory especially. Not excusing it, just saying.

Impossible ??? C'mon, were the bunkers totally covering fairways ? Why people are afraid to admit that they simply SUCK with driver control and accuracy ? Again, this is laughable and there are no friggin excuses.

Cheers

 

[dbl]

Woods hit it well the first 3 days but on Sunday only hit two fairways...that's only 14.2% on Sunday itself.

Rock had hit something like 70 or 80% of the greens on Sunday more than midway through the round (can't give you Sunday gir for all 18 holes) but had many more total putts than Woods.

eta:3 days

 

[wulsy]

R.R was (self) cited today in his victory speech as a M.O.R.A.D man currently coached in the UK by Matt Belsham. He recently had some short game coaching from European Seniors Tour Player, Zimbabwean Tony Johnson.

However, I too remember that earlier phone call(?) with BManz stuff.

I heard the victory speech too, Burner.

But all he said as far as I can remember was "Matt B had helped him with his driving recently and Tony J with his short game". No talk of MOR AD in the speech.

But maybe you have some inside knowledge that we don't in this case.

 

[Kevin Shields]

I think you need the eyeball test on the fairway stat. Courses run so fast and are so penal these days and architecture so different. So there are missed fairways and there are missed fairways. I've had tons of pured drives that take the slopes have taken a yard off the fairways. Not excusing, just saying stats are always misleading. But 14%? Not good with 6 greens. Tough to defend that one.

 

[ekennedy]

I understand some of the criticism on Tour Players innability to hit fairways, but to claim that they have no control is just plain ridiculous.

The average Division I college player carries his driver 285 yds, according to TM combines, with the top 10% being above 300. I would venture to guess that their average ballflight is probably pretty straight Assuming the fairways are 30 yds wide and the player's target is the center of the fairway, if the clubface is 1 degree off he's probably in the first cut of rough. Add in fairway firmness (not to mention they stimp around 10), slope and doglegs, its a wonder they hit fairways at all. Oh, and it doesn't affect their scoring AT ALL.

BACK IN THE DAY, players carried it shorter, generated far less clubhead speed and hit into fairways that were longer and softer, thus wider. And, conveniently, they didn't keep stats back then.

Just because Hennie Bogan split the middle of the fairway and now has to thread a three iron into a back right pin, I'll take Bubba's lob wedge from the right rough any day.

 

[Dariusz J.]

I understand some of the criticism on Tour Players innability to hit fairways, but to claim that they have no control is just plain ridiculous.

The average Division I college player carries his driver 285 yds, according to TM combines, with the top 10% being above 300. I would venture to guess that their average ballflight is probably pretty straight Assuming the fairways are 30 yds wide and the player's target is the center of the fairway, if the clubface is 1 degree off he's probably in the first cut of rough. Add in fairway firmness (not to mention they stimp around 10), slope and doglegs, its a wonder they hit fairways at all. Oh, and it doesn't affect their scoring AT ALL.

BACK IN THE DAY, players carried it shorter, generated far less clubhead speed and hit into fairways that were longer and softer, thus wider. And, conveniently, they didn't keep stats back then.

Just because Hennie Bogan split the middle of the fairway and now has to thread a three iron into a back right pin, I'll take Bubba's lob wedge from the right rough any day.

This is plain ridiculous. First, do you really believe that former players hit it so much shorter ? Now 1 degree matters, yesteryear did not matter ? Hogan would need #3 iron comparing to Watson's wedge ? Besides, what are you comparing - hitting shots out of this laughable today's "rough" ? Missing a fairway wide in the times when golf was golf would require at least 1 or even 2 or more shots to be back on fairway.
Lastly, I agree that stats are misleading and what you and Kevin say that it is a missed fairway vs. a really missed fairway. The truth is that a really missed fairway does not matter any more today and one today can be a hack with driver (yes, hack) provided he's a looooong hack and still can score less than -10 in the tournament no matter if he's missing 10 yards wide or 40 yards wide. That's laughable and noone will convince me I am wrong.

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

Course conditioning plays such a big part in this. Courses back in Hogan's day were shaggy, didn't roll out near as much and were overall a lot slower. Fairways these days on tour might have been what they would have considered "fast" greens in 1952.

Totally different game.

I watched the tournament yesterday and Rock literally missed 3 fairways by a combined 2 yards or so but he was in the proper position to play the hole. He also had 75%+ GIR's

So yes D, his tee to green game was outstanding. All week.

 

[Jared Willerson]

Really, Dariusz. You are not getting it. You, in no way, other than basic layout, compare a course Ben Hogan played on to one Robert Rock just won on.

The courses are that much faster and on average 800 yards longer. They could grow the rough higher back in the day because if a all actually ran through a fairway it was a bad shot to begin with. Players today could not Play the courses as fast as they are with 8 inch rough.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Course conditioning plays such a big part in this. Courses back in Hogan's day were shaggy, didn't roll out near as much and were overall a lot slower. Fairways these days on tour might have been what they would have considered "fast" greens in 1952.

Totally different game.

I watched the tournament yesterday and Rock literally missed 3 fairways by a combined 2 yards or so but he was in the proper position to play the hole. He also had 75%+ GIR's

So yes D, his tee to green game was outstanding. All week.

OK, so why run stats at all if one cannot read anything with them. Beats me.

Now, J, assuming he missed only 3 fairways by a combined 2 yards it seems his ballstriking was great this day and should have averaged to 78.5 %. But judging from his overall stats, he had to hit poorly in previous days which makes the claim of his phenomenal tee-to-green fgame as widely exaggerated.

Cheers

 

[Dariusz J.]

Really, Dariusz. You are not getting it. You, in no way, other than basic layout, compare a course Ben Hogan played on to one Robert Rock just won on.

The courses are that much faster and on average 800 yards longer. They could grow the rough higher back in the day because if a all actually ran through a fairway it was a bad shot to begin with. Players today could not Play the courses as fast as they are with 8 inch rough.

No, it is you who do not get it, mate - I could revenge it to you LOL. Courses do not neet to be longer at all. Media and R&A/USGA stupidity as regards COR rules and balls forced architects to lengthen them and lighten conditions to ease the game. As per the argument that players today could not play as fast as they are - noone cares. I would prefer 45 real pros than to see 72 hacks.

Everyone is entitled to subjective opinions, my friend.

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

That is the part of the point Dariusz, they didn't even keep stats back then,

The courses are different and equipment is different, it really is pointless to compare across era's. Today's players would no doubt have through the roof accuracy stats playing slower golf courses.

 

[ekennedy]

I think I can end this argument...

Despite Ben Hogan's illustrious career, he never, ever won the Fed Ex Cup.

I rest my case.

 

[dschultz6072]

Geez. The stats are there for reference. That is all. It can be argued it makes no difference from a statistical standpoint (at the FORTY PERCENT SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL) the ability of a player to drive the ball accurately and far, at least how the PGA TOUR defines accuracy. At least in 2009 it didn't. How do I know? You ever seen Moneyball? I am that dude.

In college I ran a regression run using Money Earned as a dependent variable. Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy combined to create an interaction term (ie Driving Distance percentage x Driving Accuracy Percentage) was one of the independent variables. The stat was deemed statistically significant at the 40% level of confidence (t-stat: -0.85). Well above the 5% level of confidence we like to use in Econometrics. GIR? t-stat of 1.79, still above the 5% level, though not quite as much (just under 8%).

The way accuracy is defined by the TOUR is flawed in the current metagame. If Richie3jack were here he'd say the same thing. The distance to edge of the fairway has to be accounted for. Missing the fairway but still being in position and having the ability to hit a good approach shot and hit the green...is that really a big damn deal? It is way too cut and dried. Going for a tucked pin, missing the green by a foot, landing on the collar and STILL PUTTING even when it counts as a missed green and not a putt? Is that really a big damn deal?

You're looking at the wrong stats, Dariusz. REFERENCE. Not to hold a Keegan Bradley up against your idol.

 

[Dariusz J.]

That is the part of the point Dariusz, they didn't even keep stats back then, all of these rounds where you claim Hogan never missed a fairway or green really did not exist, they are based on the stories of others, Not actual stats.

This is getting boring, Jared. I am asking for nth time in such cases - show me, please, where and when did I claim Hogan never missed a fairway or green.
Never ever said this on any fora, thus, putting me in this light AGAIN is simply wrong.
Besides, mind you, it is not me who brought the name Hogan to this thread.
I would expect more objectivity from you, especially, you're a moderator here.

As per the discussion motive, there are some strong evidences that Hogan did not miss fairways and greens during tournaments and certainly his stats would be much better than 80%. Do you doubt it ?

Geez. The stats are there for reference. That is all. It can be argued it makes no difference from a statistical standpoint (at the FORTY PERCENT SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL) the ability of a player to drive the ball accurately and far, at least how the PGA TOUR defines accuracy. At least in 2009 it didn't. How do I know? You ever seen Moneyball? I am that dude.

In college I ran a regression run using Money Earned as a dependent variable. Driving Distance and Driving Accuracy combined to create an interaction term (ie Driving Distance percentage x Driving Accuracy Percentage) was one of the independent variables. The stat was deemed statistically significant at the 40% level of confidence (t-stat: -0.85). Well above the 5% level of confidence we like to use in Econometrics. GIR? t-stat of 1.79, still above the 5% level, though not quite as much (just under 8%).

The way accuracy is defined by the TOUR is flawed in the current metagame. If Richie3jack were here he'd say the same thing. The distance to edge of the fairway has to be accounted for. Missing the fairway but still being in position and having the ability to hit a good approach shot and hit the green...is that really a big damn deal? It is way too cut and dried. Going for a tucked pin, missing the green by a foot, landing on the collar and STILL PUTTING even when it counts as a missed green and not a putt? Is that really a big damn deal?

You're looking at the wrong stats, Dariusz. REFERENCE. Not to hold a Keegan Bradley up against your idol.

Well, depends on the conditions. If there was real rough FiR stats would matter. Nowadays they did not matter much.
Besides - what reference if no conclusion can be drawn ???

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

I didn't bring up Hogan either. Look Dariusz, I believe I am being very objective dschultz made very good points in his thread. I do not believe any tour player is a hack and I believe different course conditions has to account for some of the discrepancy in accuracy statistics.

I respect your point of view.