|
Post by gmbtempe on Aug 4, 2010 10:04:30 GMT -5
Where it could affect is the LPGA who has trouble spinning the ball, would like to see their up and own numbers inside of 100 yards.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Sept 27, 2010 15:58:37 GMT -5
Stats from Golf Magizine.....no difference in the grooves on scoring and other stats. I said this was a sham beginning this year, it only affects the average joe not the tour play. Nicely done USGA.
2009 2010 Scambling 57.64% 57.72% Proximity to hole from 10-20yds 6'9" 6'8" Proximity to hole from 20-30yds 9'6" 9'3" Approches from 50-75yds 16'3" 15'8" Approaches from rough 50-75yds 22'2" 21'6" Driving Distance 279.5 278.6 Driving Accuracy 61.77% 61.87%
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Sept 27, 2010 22:26:02 GMT -5
I agree. It's a joke. Screwed over a lot of amateurs who had to pay to change clubs and wedges as well. Just not very well thought out.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by jonnygrouville on Sept 27, 2010 23:22:42 GMT -5
So what do they do to combat the bombing and the gouging?
Plan B on the gouging hasn't worked. They're reined in the drivers, but too little too late? They could start messing with the ball, but it would seem a shame to write-off the shorter hitters. Unless they could produce one that reduced how far it went the harder you hit it, so the 270s would still hit it 270, but pull the 310s back to 290 or something. Just narrow the distribution.
I'm not exactly sure where this magical sphere is going to be found though. Is Harry Potter in the R&A?
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Sept 28, 2010 11:24:20 GMT -5
So what do they do to combat the bombing and the gouging? Plan B on the gouging hasn't worked. They're reined in the drivers, but too little too late? They could start messing with the ball, but it would seem a shame to write-off the shorter hitters. Unless they could produce one that reduced how far it went the harder you hit it, so the 270s would still hit it 270, but pull the 310s back to 290 or something. Just narrow the distribution. I'm not exactly sure where this magical sphere is going to be found though. Is Harry Potter in the R&A? Does anyone have some driving stats from say 1980? I ask because I want to see the percentage distance difference between the top long drivers and the shorter players. I know say DJ averages around 307 and say a guy like Brian Gay averages 270, or about 13% less. If a guy averaged 275 for the longer players and the shorter players averaged 250 is it really different? I think what has really hurt the shorter player is the hardness of the greens that have been added. A great player like Pavin could carve a 3-4 iron into a green and play with a guy who was hitting a 7 iron, but now that ball does not stop on the green. When they lengthen courses it doesnt hurt longer players it helps them, the shorter the course the better chance a shorter hitter has.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Sept 28, 2010 15:04:39 GMT -5
You can find stats on the PGATour.com Web site and they go back all the way to 1980. So you can find the driving stats. In fact, you'll quickly see just how great of a driver Nicklaus was as he was in his 40's and was easily the best driver on Tour back then.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on Sept 28, 2010 15:21:30 GMT -5
You can find stats on the PGATour.com Web site and they go back all the way to 1980. So you can find the driving stats. In fact, you'll quickly see just how great of a driver Nicklaus was as he was in his 40's and was easily the best driver on Tour back then. 3JACK whats interesting is the numbers have not changes that much, roughly about the same % difference between the longest and shortest...........and the fairways hit are about the same with the best around 75% and the worst around 55%. Also statistically speaking the increase in distance is 13% roughly, if you apply that to a 7000 yard course then they should be lengthened to around 7900 which they are not yet, but creeping closer. I think the real difference is the ball and all around short game talents of the modern player. I think more emphasis is put on the short games of these guys earlier then before. So hitting out of the rough is neither demanding or intimidating. Wedge technology and design has also helped. It appears that greens on the upper end have stayed the same but the lower end guys hit more greens than back in 80. One could go round and round with this stuff. Wow look at putts per round! Worst putters today would be better than average back in 1980. Not sure if this is ability or technology based, greens are better for sure.
|
|
|
Post by iacas on Sept 28, 2010 17:07:42 GMT -5
I agree. It's a joke. Screwed over a lot of amateurs who had to pay to change clubs and wedges as well. Just not very well thought out. I disagree that it's a joke. There was a shot in one of the rounds of the Tour Championship. Oh, first hole I think, perhaps... anyway, one guy stuck it close (might have been Retief) from the fairway while another (Luke Donald?) landed his ball in the same spot and it ran out. Then Jim Furyk hit from thicker rough and his ball really ran out. I might have the specifics wrong, but I think the groove rule was important and has done what it set out to do. I supported the idea, I support the science behind it, and I think it's "working." We've had tournaments where more golfers have had to worry about fliers. We've had tournaments where the ball has run out from the rough a lot more than it has in previous years. I saw very few balls zipping backwards when hit from the rough. Stats won't tell you everything. The courses may have been set up differently AND pros, knowing that their wedge game might have been affected, all said they practiced their wedges over the winter more. For the modern purses they play for, that's a wise move... so perhaps everyone's wedge games improved a bit and countered the changes made.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Sept 28, 2010 20:39:25 GMT -5
I disagree that it's a joke. There was a shot in one of the rounds of the Tour Championship. Oh, first hole I think, perhaps... anyway, one guy stuck it close (might have been Retief) from the fairway while another (Luke Donald?) landed his ball in the same spot and it ran out. Then Jim Furyk hit from thicker rough and his ball really ran out.. Typically, there are always exceptions with statistics. Statistics are not about certainty, they are about probability. By the way the PGA Tour and USGA would put it it was going to make a very noticeable change in how the game is played and not allow golfers to bomb it recklessly. But obviously that hasn't happened this year and we need to remind ourselves that we have a very cold winter and spring nationwide, which held back the driving distance numbers early on...and by the end of the year no effect was made. I could flip a quarter and theoretically could do it 20 times and land heads every single time. That *could* happen. Not very likely though. The people that disregard statistics tend to point to the exceptions instead of the rule. The question should be 'would you bet $100 on flipping a quarter and having it land on heads 20 times in a row?' My guess is that they wouldn't..or they need their head examined. 3JACK
|
|
|
Post by natep on Oct 30, 2010 18:16:03 GMT -5
I think to reign in the "bomb and gauge" they should disallow metal drivers in the pro's. Just like baseball. Persimmons for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Richie3Jack on Oct 30, 2010 20:41:44 GMT -5
Club manufacturers will take them to court over it. They'd probably win as well.
The problem is the USGA and the PGA Tour has allowed so much new equipment to be legal and then when they try to reign it in, the manufacturers can say 'hey, you made them legal and we set up our marketing and advertising campaigns for them, manufactured them and now have tons of them in inventory and had deals set up with wholesalers, golf clubs, etc....and now you are saying they are going to be illegal?'
That would piss me off as well.
The USGA and the PGA really have little right to complain because they allowed them to be legalized in the first place. I think if they had a policy of making stuff illegal until they can thoroughly prove that it should be legal, a lot of this mess would have never happened.
3JACK
|
|
|
Post by rohlio on Oct 31, 2010 12:06:56 GMT -5
hmmm how to combat bomb and gouge...grow the rough, furrow the bunkers, narrow the fairways, etc.
this rule has been an utter failure.
As far as I can tell some tournaments have no problem having their winning score being around par or -5 or so. I don't even get what the problem is anyway. All types of games can and have won on the PGA Tour for years and did so this year and will continue to do so regardless of equipment.
You want scores closer to par? adjust par for the pros. Who really cares if the number is -20 under a par 72 or -12 under a par 70, hell we can get it down to Even par if we just made the course a par 67 when they show up. It is all a bunch of garbage the USGA rolled out in order to feel like they are "doing something".
|
|
|
Post by cwdlaw223 on Oct 31, 2010 18:37:50 GMT -5
Any thoughts on modern agronomy changing the difficulty of greens? I don't believe that the greens on older courses were built with a 12-13 stimp reading in mind (or could have been reached 40-50 years ago without killing the greens themselves). Certainly the ball and equipment has changed the game for the benefit of the golfer, however, getting the ball up and down on slower greens (assume the greens are true) is easier.
|
|