Shifting trends on the PGA tour.

[bunkerputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

That was my point, if he could hit his driver 30 yards more, he'd probably be the most complete player we've seen since Tiger.  The guys short game is incredible, but he can't take advantage of the long par 4's and 5's the way Tiger used to.

He can't physically do what Tiger can do.  He's not as tall, not as strong, not as well proportioned, and not as much muscle.  We don't need a Tiger replacement.  Golf isn't a cookie-cutter sport.  I've talked to plenty of other 9 handicappers that have COMPLETELY different games from mine.  I mean night and day.  In the end, our scores look the same.  We shouldn't want it any other way otherwise we'd be Nazis.

[B of H]

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

He can't physically do what Tiger can do.  He's not as tall, not as strong, not as well proportioned, and not as much muscle.  We don't need a Tiger replacement.  Golf isn't a cookie-cutter sport.  I've talked to plenty of other 9 handicappers that have COMPLETELY different games from mine.  I mean night and day.  In the end, our scores look the same.  We shouldn't want it any other way otherwise we'd be Nazis.

I agree.  If you don't have length by the time you are in college then you won't ever have it and your physical limitations are going to get in the way.  I think McIlroy will provide a good example of this: he'll need to tighten up his swing a little in order to keep it out of the rough as he just doesn't have the size and strength to hack it out like tiger or phil or gary woodland does (although he is hitting it really straight so far).  Ian Woosnam killed the ball (strong physically) but he couldn't hit the same type of shots out of the rough that norman or even faldo could because he couldn't get as upright and steep due to being 5'6 etc...  Guys like woodland, dustin johnson etc... have a significant advantage IMO when they do miss fairways.  It's similar to being tall in tennis with regards to the serve, sure some shorter guys can hit it super fast but the taller guys have a larger margin for error and can do more with it due to their reach and angle of attack.

[The Recreational Golfer]

It seems the trend of both tours now is consistency rather than moments of greatness.

That's why the #1 golfer is the guy who plays the best most often - Luke Donald.

[newtogolf]

Good points, there's no assurance the extra distance will be controlled, and he could find himself in worse position and scoring less.  I based my statement on watching him so much this year.  I realize his driving distance average is only about 30 yards off the leaders but it seems he's much shorter than that when watching him play a tournament.  I know they only use two drive a round to calculate the average but it would be interesting to see what his real average is over an entire round, it has to be less than his average or the commentators are underestimating his drive distances.

Originally Posted by B of H

well, i'm not so sure that's a cut and dry comparison and tiger can't even take the same advantage anymore.  the courses are more tricked out overall ala 'tiger proofed' and it seems like more tour stops grow out their rough and mow down greenside areas so overly aggressive shots get penalized more.  Plus, everyone is super aggressive these days despite it.  It's like they feel like they need to hit at every flag in order to compete...and who says that isnt' the case?  :)

Donald with more length would be even less accurate given simple geometry and he doesn't have the upright swing and strength to really be effective out of the rough.  He plays to his strengths extremely well and it's hard to say he'd be better with 30 yards extra and hitting out of the rough a few more times a round.  It's kind of like the old idea that long hitters don't have good short games and short hitters do...which doesn't have any validity in my mind.  It's more like the guys that are the least accurate yet compete at the same level as more accurate players have the better short games regardless of their length.  Long hitters get into more trouble and are forced to scramble even more sometimes etc...

what made tiger so dominant was how aggressive and inventive he was and how he could mentally manage that type of game under pressure.  He'd fire at flags from bunkers 200 yards out over water the whole way with a 6-iron and people would freak...now that stuff is relatively common.   I was reminded of how different the game was pre-tiger when I watched tin cup on golf channel recently, don johnson as a golf pro?  that seems silly now, it would be more of a young quarterback type guy probably, johnson was probably mid 40's at least back then.

[newtogolf]

I didn't say I wanted a Tiger replacement, I said given how good his short game is, he could be a dominate golfer like Tiger was if he could get some extra yardage out of his driver.  Not that he swings and plays like Tiger but that he sits on top of the OWGR for a year or two, not just a few weeks.    I don't want to clone Tiger, I want to see someone step up and be the next golf great, and Luke appears to be the closest IMO currently.

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

He can't physically do what Tiger can do.  He's not as tall, not as strong, not as well proportioned, and not as much muscle.  We don't need a Tiger replacement.  Golf isn't a cookie-cutter sport.  I've talked to plenty of other 9 handicappers that have COMPLETELY different games from mine.  I mean night and day.  In the end, our scores look the same.  We shouldn't want it any other way otherwise we'd be Nazis.

[bunkerputt]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I didn't say I wanted a Tiger replacement, I said given how good his short game is, he could be a dominate golfer like Tiger was if he could get some extra yardage out of his driver.  Not that he swings and plays like Tiger but that he sits on top of the OWGR for a year or two, not just a few weeks.    I don't want to clone Tiger, I want to see someone step up and be the next golf great, and Luke appears to be the closest IMO currently.

Again.  Tiger didn't dominate because of his distance.  It was his iron play and putting.  The distance is on the highlight reel, not in the stats.  Getting distance doesn't make you dominant just like not having it doesn't make you weaker.  Luke made a conscious decision to give up the distance goal and play the game he's got.  That's why he's #1.  If he just keeps doing that, don't you think he'll stay at the top?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I didn't say I wanted a Tiger replacement, I said given how good his short game is, he could be a dominate golfer like Tiger was if he could get some extra yardage out of his driver.  Not that he swings and plays like Tiger but that he sits on top of the OWGR for a year or two, not just a few weeks.    I don't want to clone Tiger, I want to see someone step up and be the next golf great, and Luke appears to be the closest IMO currently.

With Luke's chipping/putting game, I wonder how a guy like John Senden or Sergio Garcia would do?

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by B of H

I agree.  If you don't have length by the time you are in college then you won't ever have it and your physical limitations are going to get in the way.

Moe Norman used to say that you can eventually figure out how to hit a ball straight but hitting it really far can't be either learned or taught.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by B of H

I agree.  If you don't have length by the time you are in college then you won't ever have it and your physical limitations are going to get in the way.

I bet in the pro ranks that's true, but I think most people could probably learn to hit it longer. Assuming you meant for pros though, yeah, I agree. At that level they've already optimized a lot of their game, so improvements are going to be small and much more related to consistency than anything.

[newtogolf]

You keep arguing points I'm not making.  I never said that distance alone was important, what I did say was that Tiger dominated because he had distance, iron play and putting, the whole package.  Donald has the iron play and putting but lacks distance.  If Dustin Johnson improves his short game to the level of Donalds then he would likely replace Donald at the top.

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

Again.  Tiger didn't dominate because of his distance.  It was his iron play and putting.  The distance is on the highlight reel, not in the stats.  Getting distance doesn't make you dominant just like not having it doesn't make you weaker.  Luke made a conscious decision to give up the distance goal and play the game he's got.  That's why he's #1.  If he just keeps doing that, don't you think he'll stay at the top?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

Again.  Tiger didn't dominate because of his distance.  It was his iron play and putting.  The distance is on the highlight reel, not in the stats.  Getting distance doesn't make you dominant just like not having it doesn't make you weaker.  Luke made a conscious decision to give up the distance goal and play the game he's got.  That's why he's #1.  If he just keeps doing that, don't you think he'll stay at the top?

But it does to some degree. There are plenty of examples of a longer player being able to take less club off the tee, or having shorter irons into the green, and having more birdie opportunities. Luke is #1, but it's in spite of his driving, not because distance isn't an advantage.

Long hitters don't dominate but maybe their length and subsequent birdie and eagle chances are what got them this far in the first place.

Bubba - terrible decisions, poor partial wedge player, balky putter

Dustin - terrible decisions and poor partial wedge player

Garrigus - unfortunate trouser choices, terrible decisions, poor partial wedge player, children's putter

Davis Love III - karma

[B-Con]

Well, steel came first, remember.

Balls are limited under the Rules of Golf to an overall distance standard. I know how dangerous it can be to say things like this, but I think they're basically at the tail end of how far the ball can go within the rules . If there were no rules, I don't know that I would ever say that. We could probably make a ball go 300 yards with a 75 MPH swing speed if that pesky ODS wasn't in there.

I think driving distance can still go up a little, though. Average driver shaft lengths are well under the 48" limit. If everyone lengthened their shafts by 2 - 3 inches, we'd probably see drives 10-25 yards longer on average. (Granted we'd probably see more drives in the rough.) Companies like TM push longer shafts in their current product line, maybe the next generation of kids won't think much of holding a shaft 1" longer than the 46.5" stock. Looking at driving distances by decade, we might still see another couple decades of slightly increasing driving distances.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

Wasn't there a groove change that limited the benefit to the bomb-and-gouge style of play?  I wouldn't be surprised if it actually worked....

I would say that at the very least it is an influencing factor.

Regarding Donald as dominating....  True.  He may be dominating the numbers game, the money game, the scoring game, and the winning game.  But is he dominating in our hearts?

I think so.  How can you not pull for someone who should be the classic underdog?  Neither long nor especially accurate off the tee, yet the rest of his game, along with his unflappable demeanor, overcomes that deficiency.  I love watching him play.  His game is classic golf, and golfers should appreciate his style for what it is.  If you can't appreciate his game that way, then you don't really understand the intricacies of golf.

[jamo]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

But it does to some degree. There are plenty of examples of a longer player being able to take less club off the tee, or having shorter irons into the green, and having more birdie opportunities. Luke is #1, but it's in spite of his driving, not because distance isn't an advantage.

Long hitters don't dominate but maybe their length and subsequent birdie and eagle chances are what got them this far in the first place.

Bubba - terrible decisions, poor partial wedge player, balky putter

Dustin - terrible decisions and poor partial wedge player

Garrigus - unfortunate trouser choices, terrible decisions, poor partial wedge player, children's putter

Davis Love III - karma

You can add J.B. Holmes to that list too. Awful partial wedge player, and needs his caddy to read greens and line his putter up.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by jamo

You can add J.B. Holmes to that list too. Awful partial wedge player, and needs his caddy to read greens and line his putter up.

He also needs that resort course GPS to remind of him how slow he's playing.

[soloredd]

Originally Posted by Chilli Dipper

I don't understand the negativity in this thread. It's all quite simple. We're seeing a trend in professional golf right now where players are not obsessed with length, and are playing to their individual strengths moreso than changing their games to gain a little distance. Matteo Manassero is ranked within the world's top 30 at age 18, doesn't fit the stereotype of being a young bomber, and doesn't appear to be concerned about it; it cracks me up when I hear so many "expert" analysts say that he won't become an elite player unless he adds 20 yards to his drives.

Luke Donald is the best player in the world right now, not simply because he's merely the most consistently gold player in the last two years, but because the standard of his recent play is nearly incomprehensible. Outside of a missed cut at the Northern Trust Open, Luke hasn't finished outside of the top ten in any tournament since last September. That's nine consecutive months where Luke has been in contention to win every event he's entered, a streak only Tiger at his absolute best can match. He is one of four players with two major-tour wins in 2011; his two wins (a WGC and the flagship European tourney) are demonstrably better than Watson and Wilson's two PGA tour wins, and together are stronger than Schwartzel's Masters and Euro-sanctioned Joburg Open. He's accumulated 283.81 world ranking points so far this year; the next-most prolific player in that category, Schwartzel, is a full hundred points behind him. So I don't want to hear people complain that Luke Donald isn't a worthy number one, or that he isn't a dominant player. Sure, he's not Tiger Woods - Tiger Woods isn't even Tiger Woods anymore - but the run he's on right now is truly remarkable.

Great post.

I'm enjoying watching Luke more and more. The guy makes golf shots, such a solid all-around player.

[broombroom]

I dont get the point of the original post or this thread.  The reason why tiger woods and duval etc were dominating was because of there all around game mainly the short game.  They dominated because they hit most greens and sank the most putts year in and year out distance of the tee has little to do with it.  Look at bubba watson whats he acheived? nothing and hes considered long.The only person to dominate the tour over the last decade has been tiger woods.The shift in trend that we are seeing now is golf without tiger woods and that anyone can win a major now.  Obviously the courses are made harder and longer because of the advancements in technology but because of that everyone hits it further than ten years ago.

[Kieran123]

Tiger could get up and down from the middle of a forest which requires a 40 yard low fade to a pin tucked in the corner.He can make the worst possible situation/lie look easy. Luke Donald can not do that ( doesn't need to with how straight he hits it but you know.... )