Bubba Watson

[Baynative]

I'm thinking the coming competition is going to be between equipment makers and course designers. I expect the older courses to be remodeled with strategic bunker placement and narrowed landing areas in the 300 yard range with trees added to force perfection or cause shorter clubs to be used on the tee.

New courses will likely employ doglegs that require perfectly placed tee shots to demand a long high carry and penalize too much roll. Imagine a dog leg that requires a 290 carry to reach a narrow fairway with trouble on the other side - say 315 away, but can be perfectly negotiated with a high draw or fade. Many will choose to hit further back. So, the green will have trouble front and rear to give that strategy some confusion as well.

I expect to see trees added to the windward side of fairways to impair playing the breeze.

Chipping and putting will become even more valued as money making shots to have. (Then everyone can really hate Phil)

Equipment makers will enjoy selling all the trick stuff to recreational golfers while tournament course designers will start forcing competetors to be able to play every club as well as every shot. The make up of a tour pro's bag will likely change week to week.

I also look for course superintendents to create some diabolical greens. Maybe even slightly tilted tee boxes, if that's legal.

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by NCGolfer

There was a difference of 60 yards between the longest driver (Scott Hend) and shortest driver (Corey Pavin). Hend hit 63.2% of his greens and made $356,247 last year. Pavin hit 62.6% of his greens and made $736,506. Who would you rather be?


Boy did you just contradict yourself. Only 12.9% of the guys averaged over 300 yards last year, not 75%.

Obviously, Hend has some issues other places in his game. I would still rather be him. If he improves his shortcomings he will be able to compete. The days of Corey Pavin are about over.

And.....I never said average I said hit. There is a big difference between the avg distance statistic on tour and how far these guys can hit it if they need to.

Originally Posted by baynative

I'm thinking the coming competition is going to be between equipment makers and course designers. I expect the older courses to be remodeled with strategic bunker placement and narrowed landing areas in the 300 yard range with trees added to force perfection or cause shorter clubs to be used on the tee.

I think you are right and wrong. Distance puts butts in seats period. I see a lot of lengthening happening but I do not see any venue that wants to keep its stop on the schedule making Tiger, Vijay, and Phil lay up with 2 iron too much. It would be like telling Shaq he can't dunk anymore. Boring!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Obviously, Hend has some issues other places in his game. I would still rather be him. If he improves his shortcomings he will be able to compete. The days of Corey Pavin are about over.

Yet only one of them will be playing on the PGA Tour this year. In addition to making more money this year, Corey will again make more this year.

And both are extreme examples, so keep that in mind.

Originally Posted by NM Golf

And.....I never said average I said hit. There is a big difference between the avg distance statistic on tour and how far these guys can hit it if they need to.

Your phrasing was vague. You said they hit it 300. You didn't say they can hit it 300.

Regardless, point (clarification) noted. I can hit it 300 if I want to, but that also doesn't mean I'm gonna make the PGA Tour any time soon.

Originally Posted by NM Golf

I think you are right and wrong. Distance puts butts in seats period.

I disagree. First, you can't say "period" as if it's a well-known fact. It's not. Sure, a booming drive is nice to see, but people like to see eagles, birdies, and shots that stick near the pin. I won't do something as preposterous as say "period" but I will say that I'm fairly certain low scores are far more attractive to viewers than simply "distance."

And not to beat a dead horse, but low scores is more a matter of putting and iron play.

They rarely show replays on SportsCenter of someone busting a long drive, but they regularly show that 50-foot triple-breaking putt the guy made, or that eagle he made by holing out from the fairway with a 9-iron, or the bunker shot he made on 18 to save par and win the tournament.

If showing long drives was where the money was at, SportsCenter would show long drives. But it's not - it's about shooting low scores and winning golf tournaments.

Originally Posted by NM Golf

I see a lot of lengthening happening but I do not see any venue that wants to keep its stop on the schedule making Tiger, Vijay, and Phil lay up with 2 iron too much. It would be like telling Shaq he can't dunk anymore. Boring!

I too miss the days when players had to shape their shots and where you sometimes had a 5-iron into a par 5.

However, I can't think of a fair way to revert to those days. Fair being fair to both Tour players and the average golfer. You've failed to produce a plan to solve this, too (not that you've been asked, of course).

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by iacas

Your phrasing was vague. You said they hit it 300. You didn't say they can hit it 300.

Yes I was. I will attempt to be clearer next time.

I disagree. First, you can't say "period" as if it's a well-known fact. It's not. Sure, a booming drive is nice to see, but people like to see eagles, birdies, and shots that stick near the pin. I won't do something as preposterous as say "period" but I will say that I'm fairly certain low scores are far more attractive to viewers than simply "distance."

Sure the highlights show iron play and putting but the feature story of the last two weeks is how far Bubba hits it. You can't turn on golf central or ESPN golf without seeing it. When Tiger came out all anyone talked about was how far he hits it. “We have to Tigerproof the courses,” they all said. Tigerproofing had little to do with anything other than distance control. Do you dispute that? On a personal note, I like to see iron play. When I go to the Phoenix open/madhouse next week I will position myself on the fairway.

I too miss the days when players had to shape their shots and where you sometimes had a 5-iron into a par 5.

However, I can't think of a fair way to revert to those days. Fair being fair to both Tour players and the average golfer. You've failed to produce a plan to solve this, too (not that you've been asked, of course).

Is there a solution? Maybe so for some courses but for others there just isn't enough $$$ or real estate. Plus I truly believe most muni tracks are still good tests for the average player. I personally don't have nor really need to have a plan to make golf more like it used to be. Any ideas?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Sure the highlights show iron play and putting but the feature story of the last two weeks is how far Bubba hits it. You can't turn on golf central or ESPN golf without seeing it. When Tiger came out all anyone talked about was how far he hits it. “We have to Tigerproof the courses,” they all said. Tigerproofing had little to do with anything other than distance control. Do you dispute that?

I don't dispute that, but now you're starting to see why I think it's important to talk about distance honestly. Tiger's distance isn't what gave him the edge. He was still winning golf tournaments when he wasn't hitting it farther than anyone (see: a few years prior to the 2005 season). He consistently ranks high in GIR, Putting, Scrambling, etc - the "scoring" parts of the game.

So yeah, Tigerproofing was mostly about distance. But it was incorrectly about distance. After all, the guy has 50 career wins or whatever by now and 10 majors - clearly "Tigerproofing" has not worked as defined.

I'll let your hyperbole about "you can't turn on TV without seeing it" for the hyperbole it is. Sure I can. And yet, even if I do turn on the TV and see them talking about Bubba, I know that his distance is not why he played well in one tournament so far - it was his other abilities that contributed a far greater amount to his success.

I'm not going to debate "players of exactly equal skill, but one hits the ball 30 yards further off the tee" because that's not practical. You can't create such a situation. All we can look at are the facts...

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't dispute that, but now you're starting to see why I think it's important to talk about distance honestly. Tiger's distance isn't what gave him the edge. He was still winning golf tournaments when he wasn't hitting it farther than anyone (see: a few years prior to the 2005 season). He consistently ranks high in GIR, Putting, Scrambling, etc - the "scoring" parts of the game.

True, to be the best you can’t have too many weaknesses, and he doesn’t

Originally Posted by iacas

So yeah, Tigerproofing was mostly about distance. But it was incorrectly about distance. After all, the guy has 50 career wins or whatever by now and 10 majors - clearly "Tigerproofing" has not worked as defined.

True again. I personally think Tigerproofing had more affect on everyone else than on Tiger. If anything it made him better as it put everyone else at a bigger disadvantage.

Originally Posted by iacas

I'll let your hyperbole about "you can't turn on TV without seeing it" for the hyperbole it is. Sure I can. And yet, even if I do turn on the TV and see them talking about Bubba, I know that his distance is not why he played well in one tournament so far - it was his other abilities that contributed a far greater amount to his success.

Great word hyperbole, unfortunately I don’t think I exaggerated too much. I like the whole distance angle and Bubba’s story, and I am even getting sick and tired of hearing about it. Would something else exciting please happen in the golf world! As far as his game goes I never dispute that he has game far reaching beyond his abilities to hit it 360. That is a no brainer. But it is his ability to hit it 360 that makes him exciting to watch and an attraction at a tournament. Remember he took fourth place at the Sony. He got more press than Toms did. John Huston took fourth place last week and no one said a darn thing about him.

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm not going to debate "players of exactly equal skill, but one hits the ball 30 yards further off the tee" because that's not practical. You can't create such a situation. All we can look at are the facts...

Oh lets not debate that. I have got to tell you though whether or not the so called “facts” back it up. Logic would seem to suggest the shorter the shot the greater the chance for success. Now sure there are other factors involved but... I would rather have a 100 yard shot from the fairway than a 150 yard shot from the fairway, wouldn’t everyone?

[NM Golf]

Okay I had to add this last thought. I realize I am changing no ones mind but I have to make one final post before laying this whole distance thing to rest. Consider this.

Basketball:
Shooting percentage gets higher the closer to the basket a player gets. For example percentage of lay-ups made is much higher than percentage of 3 pointers.

Football:
The shorter the pass is the higher the completion rate will be. Also, the shorter the kick the higher the success rate is for the field goal kicker. In addition, in third down conversion rates the less yardage a team needs to get the higher the success rate is for them getting the first down.

Hunting:
The closer the hunter is to the animal, the shorter the shot is and his success rate increases.

Baseball:
Throwing errors to first base increase with the distance a player is from the first baseman. Third base has the most, second base the least.

Okay you get my drift I hope. Now looking at all these sports it is easy to see the equation. Closer to the target equals easier the target is to hit. If this is so in all these sports then why is it not so in golf? The stat guys suggest that distance has little to nothing to do with the ability to score and hit GIR. But simple logic tells me the closer I am to where I want to go (the green) the higher my success rate will be in getting there. Heck putting percentage gets better the closer a player gets to the hole. (Approx 90% for 2-3 ft and less the 50% outside 8 ft.) I tend to believe more all the time that the statistics are not telling the whole story. I don’t know what it is, maybe it has to do with the fact that DD is only measured 2 out of 14 holes each round. The stats can say what they want but unless golf is completely different from every other activity on earth closer equals better odds. I challenge anyone to find any sport where your odds of success don’t increase as you get closer to your target.

[jeffgladchun]

Originally Posted by NM Golf

Okay I had o add this last thought. I realize I am changing no ones mind but I have to make one final post before laying this whole distance thing to rest. Consider this.

Basketball:
Shooting percentage gets higher the closer to the basket a player gets. For example percentage of lay-ups made is much higher than percentage of 3 pointers.

Football:
The shorter the pass is the higher the completion rate will be. Also, the shorter the kick the higher the success rate is for the field goal kicker. In addition, in third down conversion rates the less yardage a team needs to get the higher the success rate is for them getting the first down.

Hunting:
The closer the hunter is to the animal, the shorter the shot is and his success rate increases.

Baseball:
Throwing errors to first base increase with the distance a player is from the first baseman. Third base has the most, second base the least.

No one can argue against that point, but at the same time you're missing the point. Erik is arguing that distance isn't that big of an advantage. I happen to disagree with his thinking, but thats what forums are for: debate and discussion. Distance is great when you can control it and most importantly you have to be able to score from your deep position.

[Baynative]

I'll buy that fans like distance, but the Shaq analogy is an odd one. Watching giants dunk is like watching fat people eat. It is the epitome of boring for me and a good part of why I no longer watch pro hoops.