Who are you rooting for?

[Dariusz J.]

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.

I know that media do not like to present incompetent pros. They think it will attract people to the game. I strongly believe it is a short-seeing attitude. If someone likes how easy the game looks and goes to the course, I can bet frustration will catch him/her soon.
Instead, people generally like to see that professional sportsmen are human, not machines. They should be shown struggling. They should be shown far from being perfect (which is the truth). This perhaps bring less people to golf but there is a much bigger probability that those who go will stick to it despite struggling.
Today's world is more and more plastic, wrapped by unreality and virtuality. Some sport disciplines are still like from real old world though, some aren't anymore. Sad to say, golf belongs now already to the latter group -- unreal pros play on unreal courses bringing unreal scores. This is how I see it.

Cheers

 

[wulsy]

Dari, in the twisted world we now live in the raison d'etre of EVERYTHING is to MAKE MONEY. There are NO EXCEPTIONS, least of all the PGA Tour.

 

[magicmarker]

Dariusz, what is your opinion on anchoring and the proposed rule change? I'm for the ban...

 

[Jared Willerson]

The USGA, I think, has realized they have let the game get away from them. They are trying to rein it in, don't be surprised when they go after the golf ball next. It's environmentally irresponsible to have let manufacturers create a ball that require 7500 yard and above golf courses. Just like from persimmon and balata to metal and urethane, the changes to the ball will be made because of fewer natural resources, There is just not enough land to build 9,000 yard monstrosities and still have the desire to "grow the game"

 

[Dariusz J.]

Dari, in the twisted world we now live in the raison d'etre of EVERYTHING is to MAKE MONEY. There are NO EXCEPTIONS, least of all the PGA Tour.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Dariusz, what is your opinion on anchoring and the proposed rule change? I'm for the ban...

I would agree with you.

I would make the hole bigger as well, since the role of putting was, and is (even more) definitely too big in scoring.

And, finally, I'd diminish the COR of clubs to the value of 90% of the COR of persimmon woods as well as the ball itself so that old historic layouts return to play despite bigger athleticism of today's sportsmen.

The USGA, I think, has realized they have let the game get away from them. They are trying to rein it in, don't be surprised when they go after the golf ball next. It's environmentally irresponsible to have let manufacturers create a ball that require 7500 yard and above golf courses. Just like from persimmon and balata to metal and urethane, the changes to the ball will be made because of fewer natural resources, There is just not enough land to build 9,000 yard monstrosities and still have the desire to "grow the game"

It's too late. They already not only destroyed courses but also the spirit of the game where control was most important and length just a small help, never viceversa.

But, better late than never, let's hope.

Cheers

 

[Lifter]

Honestly, I'm thinking about buying persimmon woods and blades and playing my home course from the green tees or something.......

 

[Kevin Shields]

The USGA, I think, has realized they have let the game get away from them. They are trying to rein it in, don't be surprised when they go after the golf ball next. It's environmentally irresponsible to have let manufacturers create a ball that require 7500 yard and above golf courses. Just like from persimmon and balata to metal and urethane, the changes to the ball will be made because of fewer natural resources, There is just not enough land to build 9,000 yard monstrosities and still have the desire to "grow the game"

D
Have course designers forgotten what a dogleg is??

 

[dschultz6072]

You would have to do more than that. The biggest factor with where everything is getting screwed up is the golf ball. Trying to hit a modern golf ball that isn't wound with a low lofted club will be near impossible. Not nearly enough spin to get the ball airborne. Find yourself some wound balls on eBay or something then give it a shot. I actually brought a Lynx Super Predator 1 wood from the early 80s to my home course to mess around with and handed it to one of the exceptionally good juniors (+0.8 HCP) out here because he was struggling on the range. I told him to have some fun and figure out how to hit this thing. He ended up enjoying hitting that club more than all of his clubs and even begged me to let him borrow it. He was really giving it a rip. 150 ball speed average with range balls and a 43" shaft. I told him I like the club and I'd try to find him a persimmon driver to play with. I'm still looking for a balata or two to show up in my range bucket and then we will go out on the course to see what is really what.

 

[Lifter]

You would have to do more than that. The biggest factor with where everything is getting screwed up is the golf ball. Trying to hit a modern golf ball that isn't wound with a low lofted club will be near impossible. Not nearly enough spin to get the ball airborne. Find yourself some wound balls on eBay or something then give it a shot. I actually brought a Lynx Super Predator 1 wood from the early 80s to my home course to mess around with and handed it to one of the exceptionally good juniors (+0.8 HCP) out here because he was struggling on the range. I told him to have some fun and figure out how to hit this thing. He ended up enjoying hitting that club more than all of his clubs and even begged me to let him borrow it. He was really giving it a rip. 150 ball speed average with range balls and a 43" shaft. I told him I like the club and I'd try to find him a persimmon driver to play with. I'm still looking for a balata or two to show up in my range bucket and then we will go out on the course to see what is really what.

Really? So if I hit a Pro V1 with a persimmon driver, it would go shorter than if I hit a Titleist Tour Balata with a persimmon driver?

 

[wulsy]

I think it would be sore to hit a persimmon. I've still got my old Toney Penna up in the loft at my parents house, I'll give it a try when I'm feeling brave and/or masochistic.

 

[dschultz6072]

Really? So if I hit a Pro V1 with a persimmon driver, it would go shorter than if I hit a Titleist Tour Balata with a persimmon driver?

I don't know. Find one and give it a shot.

 

[Nitro7]

I like them because they are trustworthy. I also cannot accept a generalization

Trustworthy?? Generalization??

When someone can't tell the difference between a toe hook and a player hitting
a shot with an open club face to avoid hooking the ball and continually misspeaks
about numerous other swing realities along with exaggerating course conditions
and toughness to magnify his own accomplishments is not exactly someone I
would call trustworthy. JMO

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.

Whoa, maybe Lee Trevino is not THAT great then? Could it be some courses didn't
fit his eye because he lacked ball striking ability? Maybe you're on to something
here D!!

explain me please, why people blamed brutal rough as the main reason for such poor scoring and the whole massacre ?

A lot of players complained about and media observers noted, the combination of
the deep severe bunkering and slick greens made it near impossible to get the ball
up and down and it was that aspect that lead to the high scoring just as much, if not
more than the deep rough.

Maybe the "people" you are referring to were either overwhelmed by the rough and/or
have an agenda that deep rough is needed to determine great ball striking. I'm not sure.

 

[Nitro7]

So if I hit a Pro V1 with a persimmon driver, it would go shorter than if I hit a Titleist Tour Balata with a persimmon driver?

I would say no, but, I would bet dollars to donuts that it would go straighter. (Probably farther too)

 

[Dariusz J.]

Trustworthy?? Generalization??

When someone can't tell the difference between a toe hook and a player hitting
a shot with an open club face to avoid hooking the ball and continually misspeaks
about numerous other swing realities along with exaggerating course conditions
and toughness to magnify his own accomplishments is not exactly someone I
would call trustworthy. JMO

Again, I do not see a correlation here. He is not the only one person who can play great golf not knowing a lick about physics. That's why subconscious is so much more powerful a tool than conscious mind when it comes to reach a goal. He can, however, in the same time be an expert on golf courses or grass or whatever.

Your generalization does not make sense at all, sorry.

Whoa, maybe Lee Trevino is not THAT great then? Could it be some courses didn't
fit his eye because he lacked ball striking ability? Maybe you're on to something
here D!!

It depends how we define great ballstriking. If we define it as ability to play all shots on command -- I agree to you; if we define it as consistency and accuracy -- Trevino is still a great top league ballstriker. If both -- I see no problem in saying that he was not in the top league where Hogan belongs (which actually is close to truth anyhow).

A lot of players complained about and media observers noted, the combination of
the deep severe bunkering and slick greens made it near impossible to get the ball
up and down and it was that aspect that lead to the high scoring just as much, if not
more than the deep rough.

Maybe the "people" you are referring to were either overwhelmed by the rough and/or
have an agenda that deep rough is needed to determine great ball striking. I'm not sure.

And maybe they blamed rough since it was the primary problem they had to deal with standing on the tee. Besides, if somene lost a stroke on greens or around greens because of difficulty cannot match losing e.g. 3 strokes because of heavy true rough (see Hogan's example or anyone's or lost balls, etc.).

Cheers

 

[ParHunter]

D
Have course designers forgotten what a dogleg is??

Good point. There is nice course near me build into a forest with lots of doglegs, some sharp 90 degrees some more gradual. Driver would be too much on most holes for a professional.
I would love to see how professionals would play this course. But I guess they would just drive over the corners, they probably have enough hight long enough to fly the trees. Danger is that they are either to short (get caught up in the trees) or too long and they end up on the other side in the trees.

 

[Nitro7]

Again, I do not see a correlation here.
Your generalization does not make sense at all, sorry.

You're just ignoring the point. He's NBC's lead analyst and he fails to keep current with
swing physics and biomechanics. He bends the truth about the past and makes a fool of
himself by making ridiculously bogus comments about players. Nothing trustworthy about
that behavior. I'm not generalizing, these are specific examples. If you want to believe his
every word, that's your prerogative. I don't.

As for Trevino, I was kidding. The fact is, deep rough rarely brings the accurate specialists
to the top and most times it fails to determine the best player in the field. Tough rough is
fine but unplayable rough does nothing to bring the best out of the best players in the world.

Players were making double and triple bogies because of the bunkers at Winged Foot in '74.
Some were taking 2 and 3 swings to get out of them. Johnny Miller took 4 swings to get out
of one. It was better to lay up short of the green from a really bad lie in the rough because
players could make par or bogey from there. Most of the catastrophes were made from the
bunkers. I guess Miller's memory is a little foggy or maybe he's just trying to suppress that
disastrous hole. Saying you could only advance the ball 75 yards from the rough just isn't
the whole truth. There were players hitting it farther than that from the rough and Palmer
was one of them.

 

[Nitro7]

The USGA, I think, has realized they have let the game get away from them. They are trying to rein it in, don't be surprised when they go after the golf ball next. It's environmentally irresponsible to have let manufacturers create a ball that require 7500 yard and above golf courses. Just like from persimmon and balata to metal and urethane, the changes to the ball will be made because of fewer natural resources, There is just not enough land to build 9,000 yard monstrosities and still have the desire to "grow the game"

It's a little tougher than you think to deal with the golf equipment OEMs. I do think the ball
needs to be dealt with just from a conservation standpoint of land and resources as you say.
But, if you mess with company profits, you'll find yourself in court dealing with a lawsuit.
The cost of that could destroy the USGA's very existence. They have to tread carefully when
changing the way the game is played. Tricky business. Just trying to clarify the definition of
a stroke has wide ranging implications. Keeping everyone happy with the rules and at the
same time preserving the integrity of the game is a thankless job.

 

[Jared Willerson]

No doubt Nitro, I just think eventually, maybe, the manufacturers will realize that to keep growing the game there is going to have to be some kind of give and take in regards to the golf ball.

I know its thankless and the powers that be don't get enough credit for doing what they do but I do think the issue will have to be addressed at some point.

 

[Dariusz J.]

You're just ignoring the point. He's NBC's lead analyst and he fails to keep current with
swing physics and biomechanics. He bends the truth about the past and makes a fool of
himself by making ridiculously bogus comments about players. Nothing trustworthy about
that behavior. I'm not generalizing, these are specific examples. If you want to believe his
every word, that's your prerogative. I don't.

OK, but you still also miss my point. I do not care if they fire him out because of his incompetence (I agree to you that he should have at least basic knowledge about everything) or not. I am just trying to listen to a guy who played lots of tournaments (including lots of US Opens) on the highest level and I do not need his D-Plane knowledge in this moment.

As for Trevino, I was kidding. The fact is, deep rough rarely brings the accurate specialists
to the top and most times it fails to determine the best player in the field. Tough rough is
fine but unplayable rough does nothing to bring the best out of the best players in the world.
Players were making double and triple bogies because of the bunkers at Winged Foot in '74.
Some were taking 2 and 3 swings to get out of them. Johnny Miller took 4 swings to get out
of one. It was better to lay up short of the green from a really bad lie in the rough because
players could make par or bogey from there. Most of the catastrophes were made from the
bunkers. I guess Miller's memory is a little foggy or maybe he's just trying to suppress that
disastrous hole. Saying you could only advance the ball 75 yards from the rough just isn't
the whole truth. There were players hitting it farther than that from the rough and Palmer
was one of them.

Well, every possible obstacle on the course is a challenge and it is obvious for me that the better a ballstriker is (in the sense he is very accurate and consistent) the better he will deal with these obstacles, no matter if it is deep rough or deep bunkers. Hogan's 1953 on Carnoustie's par 5 is the best example -- only he was able to omit bunkers with a driver and place ball 4 times (with different wind) between bunkers and OB stakes. Even Nicklaus said he was not good enough to repeat it. Would you say that it isn't a great example of how excellent ballstriking creates chances for better scoring ?
It is the same with deep penal rough which should be kept in some places to not let wild shooters avoid some sort of penalty for a crappy drive.
As regards Miller and his stories -- it is obvious that you know how it were in 1974 and your story seems to be trusthworthy , too. But it is tough to decide whom to trust -- believe me -- you or a true contender who was there struggling, and not only watching. If Miller lies, there should be some comments on the net from other players or spectators in the spirit that e.g. "forget this rough, bunkers and greens were something instead". However, although I tried to deepen my knowledge on this massacre, penal rough was always raised as the reason no.1.

Cheers

 

[Nitro7]

You're slowly softening your stance on extremely penal rough being THE litmus test for great ball striking.

What I'm more curious about is your designation of a "pampered course" and that you seem to feel most all
courses played on the PGA Tour are of this kind of pampered setup.

Is Augusta National a pampered course? How about Torrey Pines South, Pebble Beach, Riviera, PGA National,
Doral Blue, Innisbrook, Bay Hill, Harbour Town, Quail Hollow, TPC Sawgrass Stadium, Colonial, Congressional,
Muirfield Village, Merion, Firestone, Oak Hill, Sedgefield, East Lake? Are all these fabulous courses pampered
if they lack severe deep penal rough in your mind? Does difficulty of design matter at all to you? What about
difficult green undulations and speed? Bunkering? If the leaders in a tournament shoot lower scores is that
course automatically a pampered course? Did Trevino and Miller in their era play pampered courses? What
about Hogan, all tough tracks with deep rough week in week out?

I'm sitting here watching the Honda coverage on pgatour.com and I'm wondering if you are designating PGA
National a pampered course. Rough looks pretty juicy and thick to me. I've played there a lot and the rough
is always tough to deal with. Sometimes you can get lucky and the ball sits up a bit, but then you get a flier
and it's tough to hit it the right distance and/or hold a shot on the green. Would you require the rough to be
8" long for it not to be a pampered course?