Who are you rooting for?

[Jared Willerson]

All we have are the stats available for the courses these guys play, they play the courses they are told to play, it's not really their fault, they play with the hand they are dealt.

Golf started in an area where there was not much rough. A lot of great courses were designed in the golden age with minimal rough. Mackenzie, Ross, Raynor and others were not big fans of brutish rough.

IMO, the sport is supposed to be fun and the rules are there to make sure everyone plays the same game. I don't think golf would have caught on as a sport if it were an exercise in sado masochism.

 

[Lifter]

Dariusz,

How do you know that the tour courses back in the old days were so much tougher? The greens were much slower (and therefore easier), that's for sure. The PGA was held on a bunch pf crappy courses in that era and very few players went to the British Open. That leaves Augusta and the US Open, and Augusta was much more wide-open in those days than it is now. So, that leaves just the US Open, and it's played on many of the same courses, Merion, Olympic, Oakmont, Winged Foot.......

 

[Lifter]

And poor ballstrikers were able to win plenty of tournaments back in the old days. Just look at Bobby Locke, for example......

 

[Dariusz J.]

All we have are the stats available for the courses these guys play, they play the courses they are told to play, it's not really their fault, they play with the hand they are dealt.

Yes, but it does not say I cannot have my own opinion about which of the stats are of real importance.

Golf started in an area where there was not much rough. A lot of great courses were designed in the golden age with minimal rough. Mackenzie, Ross, Raynor and others were not big fans of brutish rough.

Excuse me ? I thought golf started in Scotland, where there were plenty of rough and the notion fairway had its meaning.

IMO, the sport is supposed to be fun and the rules are there to make sure everyone plays the same game. I don't think golf would have caught on as a sport if it were an exercise in sado masochism.

Actually, what you call sado masochism, great players of yesteryear call the biggest charm or the only one way to decide who's really the best.

Dariusz,

How do you know that the tour courses back in the old days were so much tougher? The greens were much slower (and therefore easier), that's for sure. The PGA was held on a bunch pf crappy courses in that era and very few players went to the British Open. That leaves Augusta and the US Open, and Augusta was much more wide-open in those days than it is now. So, that leaves just the US Open, and it's played on many of the same courses, Merion, Olympic, Oakmont, Winged Foot.......

Because I read books and watch pictorials from the past. I read comments of great players. I am astonished you ask such a naive question at all.

And poor ballstrikers were able to win plenty of tournaments back in the old days. Just look at Bobby Locke, for example......

Locke was the best putter in the history of the game. It offset his not great ballstriking and was enough in some cases.

Cheers

 

[Jared Willerson]

I never said anything about where golf started, I'm talking about the golden age of course design probably 1910-1930

 

[Nitro7]

Those are words that are offensive and I did not deserve them.

Must be a language barrier or something. Tried to PM you, but your PM box is full.

Nothing I said was offensive. On the contrary, they were words of friendliness and support...

"Keep smiling" means I'm wishing you happiness in the future.

"Sticking it to someone" means keep on debating and being a thorn in the side of a certain
individual that says some silly things about the golf swing.

Don't make me be angry at you again or you will hear some things that you do not want to.

That's an idle threat. Now you owe me another apology.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Must be a language barrier or something. Tried to PM you, but your PM box is full.

Nothing I said was offensive. On the contrary, they were words of friendliness and support...

"Keep smiling" means I'm wishing you happiness in the future.

"Sticking it to someone" means keep on debating and being a thorn in the side of a certain
individual that says some silly things about the golf swing.



That's an idle threat. Now you owe me another apology.

You said it already yesterday, before you deleted your last post, hell knows why. I emptied my box just after it and nothing came in.

Don't expect me knowing all strange idioms. If we were on a Polish language forum and you were not native Pole, I would be the first to help you to understand all, not to saying that's obvious and demanding apologies later. Think a bit about it first.

Cheers

 

[Nitro7]

Don't expect me knowing all strange idioms. If we were on a Polish language forum and you were not native Pole, I would be the first to help you to understand all, not to saying that's obvious and demanding apologies later. Think a bit about it first.

What do you think my last post was?

You are the one slinging threats at me. I don't do that to you. I'm not demanding an
apology, just saying you should for that last senseless threat.

You said it already yesterday, before you deleted your last post, hell knows why. I emptied my box just after it and nothing came in.

As I said in the deleted post, which is my right to do btw, it was beautiful weather here
yesterday and I wasn't about to spend it trying to re-send a PM. Think a bit about that.

Now, to continue the discussion of the thread...Who wins more tournaments and majors,
players that hit more FIR or GIR? What's the stat for that?

What about ball striking ability from the rough? Many majors are won because of great
shots from the rough. You completely ignore this aspect and it has to be included when
designating who is a great ball striker.

If a golf course has tough rough, then the player with the best ball striking ability from
the rough will have a definite advantage over the field. I don't care who hits the most
fairways, everybody misses fairways and the short accurate players off the tee are
probably going to suffer greatly when they find themselves in the rough. That's why
not too many short, accurate players win majors.

D, I think you greatly under-estimate regular tour event course setups and the ability
of todays players, especially the long hitting ones. I'd like to see you play PGA National
or Doral the way they are setup for the tour. You would be overwhelmed by how tough
they really are to score on. To call either of those two venues pampered courses is a
very naive comment on your part IMO. Many tour courses may look easy on TV, but
they're not, it's more of a testament to just how good these tour guys really are when
they can shoot low scores on tough courses.

I probably shouldn't even bother with you about this subject, but, every now and then
it's fun to yank your chain. (That means to have FRIENDLY banter back and forth with
you keeping in mind that the exchange is all in good fun!)

Back to the good weather tomorrow! Seeeya. (That's a friendly "talk to you later")

 

[Dariusz J.]

What do you think my last post was?

You are the one slinging threats at me. I don't do that to you. I'm not demanding an
apology, just saying you should for that last senseless threat.



As I said in the deleted post, which is my right to do btw, it was beautiful weather here
yesterday and I wasn't about to spend it trying to re-send a PM. Think a bit about that.

Now, to continue the discussion of the thread...Who wins more tournaments and majors,
players that hit more FIR or GIR? What's the stat for that?

What about ball striking ability from the rough? Many majors are won because of great
shots from the rough. You completely ignore this aspect and it has to be included when
designating who is a great ball striker.

If a golf course has tough rough, then the player with the best ball striking ability from
the rough will have a definite advantage over the field. I don't care who hits the most
fairways, everybody misses fairways and the short accurate players off the tee are
probably going to suffer greatly when they find themselves in the rough. That's why
not too many short, accurate players win majors.

D, I think you greatly under-estimate regular tour event course setups and the ability
of todays players, especially the long hitting ones. I'd like to see you play PGA National
or Doral the way they are setup for the tour. You would be overwhelmed by how tough
they really are to score on. To call either of those two venues pampered courses is a
very naive comment on your part IMO. Many tour courses may look easy on TV, but
they're not, it's more of a testament to just how good these tour guys really are when
they can shoot low scores on tough courses.

I probably shouldn't even bother with you about this subject, but, every now and then
it's fun to yank your chain. (That means to have FRIENDLY banter back and forth with
you keeping in mind that the exchange is all in good fun!)

Back to the good weather tomorrow! Seeeya. (That's a friendly "talk to you later")

Well, while your help now with explaining idioms is very helpful and is appreciated by me, please do not exaggerate ("seeeya"). Neither you're so f'n brilliant, nor I so f'n stupid as you want to present yourself and myself.

As per your way of thinking -- first of all, GIR should be a direct derivative of FIR; if there's a situation that someone wins a tournament having the best GIR and a mediocre FIR -- something is simply wrong with the layout. No matter one's abilities it should be simply not possible to hit a green in regulation from deep rough. Period.

Let me quote Miller and Trevino here:

Johnny Miller on evolving U.S. Open setups: “The only thing that players have in their favor, if you call it favor, is the rough is not like the rough was in my era. These new players, they have no idea what U.S. Open rough was. You look at the picture of Hogan in '55, it took him three swings to get back to the fairway on 18. I mean, these guys are pampered. At Winged Foot, when Irwin was 7 over and won there, if you hit a hundred balls in the rough, the longest you could average it out of the rough was about 75 yards, hitting the hardest shot you could hit, with all your might. So, these guys have no clue what rough is. They lost that word. They don't even know what the word ‘rough’ is, in my opinion.”

Lee Trevino on the 74 US Open at WingedFoot - "If you don't set up a golf course like that, then a guy can hit it all over the place and still win the golf tournament. So, you didn't identify the best player that week."

Now tell me that I should listen to you or a today's tour player more than to these greats.

Let's not beat the dead horse again. Neither you will convince me with your lame arguments nor I won't convince you with my lame arguments.

Cheers


P.S. Thanks for a PM, where you show your better face (easier when it is not publicly done ?). I will read it carefully and answer it in the same spirit, you can trust me.

 

[jimmyt]

I would hardly call Miller & Trevino "Todays Tour Player". They played on the Grand scale but they have not played relative golf in over 20+ years.

I agree with one thing you stated and that is no one will change your opinion. Your entitled to it! It's just kind of hard to look at a view point that is always based on information from the 50's, 60's or 70's. That means that for the most part your opinion is in some cases over 30 years old. We all need to evolve and roll with the changing times

 

[Dariusz J.]

I would hardly call Miller & Trevino "Todays Tour Player". They played on the Grand scale but they have not played relative golf in over 20+ years.

Where did I call them today's tour players ??? I oppose them and their attitude to today's pampered crybabies !

I agree with one thing you stated and that is no one will change your opinion. Your entitled to it! It's just kind of hard to look at a view point that is always based on information from the 50's, 60's or 70's. That means that for the most part your opinion is in some cases over 30 years old. We all need to evolve and roll with the changing times.

I am not against evolving itself. I am always against evolving in wrong direction -- no matter what part of life it refers to. IMO, golf has been going into wrong direction for some decades.

Cheers

 

[Nitro7]

Well, while your help now with explaining idioms is very helpful and is appreciated by me, please do not exaggerate ("seeeya"). Neither you're so f'n brilliant, nor I so f'n stupid as you want to present yourself and myself.

There you go again misinterpreting what I said. SeeeYa is a unique way of saying
goodbye. It actually was started by a golf buddy of mine here in Florida back in
the early '90's. You put the emphasis on the drawn out "Seeee" part with a soft
"Ya" on the end. It's just an upbeat way of saying see ya later between friends.

Back to the issue at hand.

Winged Foot in '74 was not a blueprint for US Open setups. On the contrary. At
the time there was the perception that Winged Foot didn't have the recognition
for being as tough a venue as some of the more famous US Open courses and
along with Miller's 63 in the final round the year before at Oakmont, the USGA
somehow allowed the rough to grow abnormally long. Yet, it wasn't the rough
alone that lead to the high scores. Most of the players struggled with the deep
bunkers, slick greens, tough pin locations and found it extremely difficult to get
the ball up and down. Add to that the course length forcing the players to hit
long irons into greens and the massacre came to life.

Despite generously wide fairways for a US Open and perfect weather conditions
many ACCURATE ball strikers, including the great Lee Trevino, missed the cut!!
I don't think Lee's quote makes much sense since the Winged Foot setup didn't
do what he thought it should have done because there were players who hit it
all over the place that contended. Must have been frustrating for a great ball
striker like Trevino to shoot 16 over par for two days and have an early exit
from the championship.

The '74 Open was not exactly a parade of great ball strikers either. The top
of the leaderboard that Sunday was made up of guys like Bert Yancy, Forrest
Fezler, a 44 year old Arnold Palmer slashing his way around WF making some
very unlikely pars and Tom Watson, the third round leader who fell apart with
a final nine of 41 and a 79. Irwin won with a couple of long putts and several
curling clutch par putts in the final round. Even he bogeyed two of the last four
holes.

As for Miller's comments, did he play in the '55 Open?? Don't think so. Again,
he uses the '74 Open as evidence for deep rough being the norm at US Opens
in his era even though a lot of Opens did not have rough that deep and it wasn't
the singular reason for the high scoring that year as I mentioned above.

I don't think most fans paying attention need to be told that Miller has a tendency
to exaggerate the truth a bit to make his accomplishments stand out above todays
players and we all should know by now that he seems to be clueless when it comes
to what's going on with club/ball collisions. I think a lot of what he has to say is
lame and I don't trust him to be very objective when reminiscing about the past.
JMHO

Since 1980 there have been plenty of tough setups in the US Open at courses like
Olympic, Shinnecock, Pinehurst, Winged Foot, Oakmont, Pebble Beach, Oakland
Hills. Except for Shinnecock, I've played all those courses and got to play several
of them a couple days after the tournament in US Open trim and they were brutal,
especially Oakland Hills in '85...just missed qualifying for that one.

Deep rough by itself is not necessarily the best way to elevate accurate ball strikers
to the top of the leader board over the less accurate long hitters and it's definitely
not a sure fire way to identify the best player in the field either. This has been
proven many times over. You make this too easy D.

 

[jimmyt]

You are correct after I reread the thread.......however my comments stay valid as you referred to Trevino & Miller as "These Greats". Doesn't change the fact that they have not been a factor for over 20 years. I personally think you like the opinions of Miller & Trevino is because they are locked in a time warp as well, living in the glorious days of yesteryear. Jack Nicklaus on the other hand has progressed his thinking forward....he wants everything done to further the game of golf, bringing in more young people than ever before. The only was to bring in the young is to embrace them not alienate them. He was interviwed on the Fehrety Show on the golf channel last night.

 

[Nitro7]

You are correct after I reread the thread.......however my comments stay valid as you referred to Trevino & Miller as "These Greats". Doesn't change the fact that they have not been a factor for over 20 years. I personally think you like the opinions of Miller & Trevino is because they are locked in a time warp as well, living in the glorious days of yesteryear. Jack Nicklaus on the other hand has progressed his thinking forward....he wants everything done to further the game of golf, bringing in more young people than ever before. The only was to bring in the young is to embrace them not alienate them. He was interviwed on the Fehrety Show on the golf channel last night.

This is a very valid point Jimmyt and I certainly agree with you. Also, when talking with
Jack he doesn't embellish upon his accomplishments. Of course, he is the greatest major
champion, but, he is really matter of fact when discussing how he played and his opinions
of how others played and especially about course setups. It's rather refreshing actually to
not have to listen to how tough it was back in the day and how much better all the players
were compared to todays tour players.

He really does a great job admiring and helping young talented players pursue their careers.

 

[jimmyt]

This is a very valid point Jimmyt and I certainly agree with you. Also, when talking with
Jack he doesn't embellish upon his accomplishments. Of course, he is the greatest major
champion, but, he is really matter of fact when discussing how he played and his opinions
of how others played and especially about course setups. It's rather refreshing actually to
not have to listen to how tough it was back in the day and how much better all the players
were compared to todays tour players.

He really does a great job admiring and helping young talented players pursue their careers.

Here......Here

 

[Dariusz J.]

You are correct after I reread the thread.......however my comments stay valid as you referred to Trevino & Miller as "These Greats". Doesn't change the fact that they have not been a factor for over 20 years. I personally think you like the opinions of Miller & Trevino is because they are locked in a time warp as well, living in the glorious days of yesteryear. Jack Nicklaus on the other hand has progressed his thinking forward....he wants everything done to further the game of golf, bringing in more young people than ever before. The only was to bring in the young is to embrace them not alienate them. He was interviwed on the Fehrety Show on the golf channel last night.

I have nothing against embracing young people. Au contre. This is one of few positives of how golf is evolving. Alas, there are more negatives than positives in my opinion.

As regards Miller and Trevino's opinions -- no, I like them because they are trustworthy. IMO, there is no better test for ballstriking quality than a severe but fair layout. If there is a tour player today who would protest against layouts allowing for ridiculous scorings > -15 over 4 days, I'd drink vodka with him.

Winged Foot in '74 was not a blueprint for US Open setups. On the contrary. At
the time there was the perception that Winged Foot didn't have the recognition
for being as tough a venue as some of the more famous US Open courses and
along with Miller's 63 in the final round the year before at Oakmont, the USGA
somehow allowed the rough to grow abnormally long. Yet, it wasn't the rough
alone that lead to the high scores. Most of the players struggled with the deep
bunkers, slick greens, tough pin locations and found it extremely difficult to get
the ball up and down. Add to that the course length forcing the players to hit
long irons into greens and the massacre came to life.

I can suspect it. Although, explain me please, why people blamed brutal rough as the main reason for such poor scoring and the whole massacre ?

Despite generously wide fairways for a US Open and perfect weather conditions
many ACCURATE ball strikers, including the great Lee Trevino, missed the cut!!
I don't think Lee's quote makes much sense since the Winged Foot setup didn't
do what he thought it should have done because there were players who hit it
all over the place that contended. Must have been frustrating for a great ball
striker like Trevino to shoot 16 over par for two days and have an early exit
from the championship.

The '74 Open was not exactly a parade of great ball strikers either. The top
of the leaderboard that Sunday was made up of guys like Bert Yancy, Forrest
Fezler, a 44 year old Arnold Palmer slashing his way around WF making some
very unlikely pars and Tom Watson, the third round leader who fell apart with
a final nine of 41 and a 79. Irwin won with a couple of long putts and several
curling clutch par putts in the final round. Even he bogeyed two of the last four
holes.

Deep rough by itself is not necessarily the best way to elevate accurate ball strikers
to the top of the leader board over the less accurate long hitters and it's definitely
not a sure fire way to identify the best player in the field either. This has been
proven many times over. You make this too easy D.

I am perfectly aware that putting a serious gradual fair rough is not enough to determine great ballstriking. But it gives certainly more chances than a pampered course.
As regards Trevino's failure and less skilled players success there -- do not forget that there are also factors that you cannot either predict or measure, such as luck (lack of), bad (good) daily form or simply layout (not) matching playing style. I do not know Winged Foot and if it favours draws more than fades, but the very Trevino said that there are layouts he cannot simply play well because he's not very universal.
Also, one cannot forget that a genial putting/chipping-in daily disposition can offset everything even on a toughest course. It is not fair at all, but such things happen. I guess you had to meet such lucky bastards who couldn't lick your tee-to-green game and still scored better. Taking into account how my play looks, I meet such a situation relatively frequently to my disgust.


As per Miller, I know that his reputation as a commentator is not great. However, he did not have to play in 1955 to know what happened to Hogan and how he lost 3 strokes on 18th hole because of bad luck on the tee. I also cannot accept a generalization, that he does not know wat he talks about course layouts and difficulty being one of the better US Open players. His ignorance of D-plane or other such things is completely irrevelant in this discussion.


I liked your post though. You know your stuff, although you sometimes have problems with being 100% objective.


Cheers

 

[ms1170]

Jack is a very classy guy, but it has been easy in the sense that no one has even approached his record. If and when Tiger ties or passes him will be the real test as to what Jack has to say. I think he'll take the high road. So many of these retired athletes need to move on and leave the young guys alone. Miller, Norman, Pele ( He's the worst ) Joe Namath, Shaq, Just need to shut up.

 

[tongzilla]

Also, one cannot forget that a genial putting/chipping-in daily disposition can offset everything even on a toughest course. It is not fair at all, but such things happen. I guess you had to meet such lucky bastards who couldn't lick your tee-to-green game and still scored better. Taking into account how my play looks, I meet such a situation relatively frequently to my disgust.

 

[Dariusz J.]

Yeah, as usually. If one has nothing wise to say in the topic one will can find always a moronish way to gather attention.
If you can think a bit more you can easily see there's a difference between complaining and just stating the fact because it matches the context and underlines it. Geeezzz

 

[dschultz6072]

D, I would wager a lot of these tournaments are set up for scoring because the TOUR knows it will attract viewers. The average viewer would rather see people going low and pulling off seemingly incredible shots. The professionals are supposed to be good, so in "our" eyes, they should be out there dropping 66s like it was no problem. Anyone who really plays knows this is a fallacy. But the TOUR is after ratings. Some tournaments are reserved for ridiculous setups and tough scoring conditions, such as the US Open, where even par is often times a great finish through 4 days. Most are not, such as the Hyundai. It's just the way it is. This is part of the reason why LPGA is suffering. It's hard to find a tournament where the ladies are out there really going low. The idea that these pros are birdieing or eagle half the holes while the average player is bogeying all of them is what draws the viewer to watch them.