But Lag, don’t you always make the argument that the great swings evolved from using more proper equipment? So isn’t it fair, following your logic, to say that the moves we see on TV would improve if they too played with flat, heavy gear? That’s all I’m saying. It just doesn’t seem fair to place the criticism on them when your own theory tells us that their swings are doomed from the start because they are playing with the light crap.
I really don’t blame the players… I blame the ruling body for allowing this to happen. Yes, swings in general would improve and players would play heavier gear that they could feel and control if the courses were set up so that poor driving was penalized. The Canadian Open last year was a perfect example how a course could be set up in the modern age to discourage the bomb and gouge game. It was interesting that suddenly the better ball strikers were on the board and the wild drivers were packing their bags Friday evening. 4 over par made the cut, and 4 under won the event… and this is with guys playing modern gear. I have no doubt that a great persimmon player from the past could have easily won that event playing gear from 20 or even 60 years ago with a balata golf ball… even against the guys using today’s modern gear. Why?
Because they were much better golfers. If today’s touring pros had played last years Canadian Open with vintage gear and a balata, I doubt any of them would have broken par much less make the cut if it still stood at 4 over. This is how professional golf courses should be set up every week so that good ball strikers are properly rewarded, and poor strikers properly punished.
take a look at the scores… and remember, this is a par 70 and I don’t think it played anywhere near as long as typical tour events.
pgatour.com/tournaments/r032/results.html
A good golfer can still shoot under par on a very tight course with less than perfect fairways and even poor greens if they actually know all the shots needed to do so.
I’m not convinced many of the guys on tour today are anywhere near as good as people think. Level fairway lies, perfectly manicured courses and pristine greens don’t breed great golfers very often.
I’m really not speculating. I played on tour for years and saw how good guys were. They were not spraying the ball all over the golf course and hitting short or mid irons into 5 pars picking up 4 freebies a round.
The swings are not great, the gear is not good, and if more events were set up this way… it would expose a lot of the nonsense going on.
For sure. Anyone who just shoots a 58 (last week) and owns all three course records is a top ball striker, no?. Bubba is also one of the few on tour, they say, that really works the ball on every shot. For a known bomber, that is nice to hear. He also still plays his blade-like irons (for Pings at least) that came out in 2003. I’m guess the most “classic” set in play of all top-50 players in the World. So cudos.
John your feelings on the Canadian open fall down when you look at the winners stats. far from being one of the most accurate on tour Sean o’hair was ranked in the 160s for driving in 2011. Perhaps he had a great week, i don’t know but intuition tells me if he did have a good week with anything it will have been his putter.
Of course you have to putt lights out to win a tournament. They also hacked down the rough in half on Friday after the round because too many guys were shooting 78’s… but the rough was still a lot higher than a typical tour event down in the states. Had they not cut the rough, I doubt the winner would have broken par. O Hair played excellent golf to win that event. Regardless of what his year combined stats were… he had to be driving the ball well to score the way he did that week. When is the last time you saw Lee Janzen on a leaderboard? Daley did well also… and was hitting a ton of irons off the tee. He’s not the bomb and gouge player people think he is. He’s got a lot of touch and shotmaking skills.
Great analysis John.
Quotes from a few players at last years Canadian Open
Great quotes. I liked Ernies the best.
Are there any quotes from people who say they like it when a course is set up easy?
just asking…
How much worse at driving the ball do you guys feel the pros of today are compared to pros say from 1980?
As a group would you say they are significantly better, a little better, much the same, a little worse or significantly worse?
Styles - I think you’ve been watching golf long enough that you already know the answer to these questions. Common sense would also tell you that there are many factors that aren’t reflected in a simple % check of drives in the fairway between two eras.
Just pulling on two items (of many) that keep me from watching golf on TV like I used to.
- The disparity between long hitters and average hitters is now vast. Once upon a time most everyone in any field was certainly within 30 or so yards of one another. Now…it could be well more than 60 yards! And that’s with just the driver. That’s absurd. A course could be designed prior to the current long-ball game to give real risk reward options. Now…that isn’t the case. I just don’t see course designers really liking this new type of golf much either.
- Too much putting. I know that is a component of scoring in golf, but it’s boring. I’d wager over 50% of the time on TV is spent watching somebody marking their ball and lining up their putt. Yawn.
Captain Chaos
And yet it is only ever putting that has won a tournament.
So did golf coverage of the 70s and 80s only show drives and approaches?
Im interested to hear what abs’ers as a whole think the answer is to my previous question because for sure you are being led to believe that a missed airways was a rarity back in the day
It appears that driving the ball well in 1980 meant a lot more than it did in 2007:
some stats:
In 1980, the top 20 drivers on the PGA Tour averaged 42nd on the money list.
In 2007, the top 20 drivers averaged 105th on the money list.
In 1980, Mike Reid was the #1 rated driver and finished #9 on the money list.
In 2007, Jose Coceres was the #1 rated driver and finished 72nd on the money list.
In 1980, Tom Watson was #1 on the money list and was #57 in driving.
In 2007, Tiger Woods was #1 on the money list and #152 in driving.
It took a better golf swing to get the ball in the fairway with persimmon that hitting a tennis racket sized golf club with a springboard face and a low spinning ball that doesn’t curve off line nearly as much as the balatas.
The biggest difference is in the way they set up the courses on tour. They don’t grow rough as deep as they used to… and courses at least over here don’t typically have many trees on them anymore once you leave the west coast swing. So in the past there was a great reward for being consistently in the fairway, while today there is not. The box grooves allow the modern players to hold the greens from light or medium rough…milled faces, diamond plating etc… all this stuff takes skill out of the game. Why worry about hitting it in the fairway if you don’t have to? So they don’t. The swings now are not good.
Scores are better because they are playing par 68’s… and the greens are pristine. When the greens were not so good, players had to hit the ball closer to the hole… and keep doing that… and of course they would make a few… but guys were not average 27 putts a round. When I won on tour I was never under 30 putts a round in 4 days. That is unheard of now.
I’m trying to teach people how to swing the golf club. The best ball strikers came from the past, not the present. If I was watching amazing golf and shot making, I would embrace the modern swings… but every time I turn on the TV and watch golf I see guys missing greens with 8 irons and hitting 50% of their fairways. I mean seriously… if a player can swing at a golf ball with a frying pan and land the ball within a 60 yard wide tolerance. There it is right there. 30 yard wide fairway, and 15 yards of light rough on either side of that. So now it’s just like playing the red and black on the roulette wheel. You could hit 100 golf balls randomly out there and 50% would be in the fairway just based on the law of averages.
If you think that’s cool… good for you.
I wasn’t out there on tour in the 80s because I was only about 8 yrs. old in '88… But I can say having played older tracks from past tour events that are long gone vs. new TPC tracks that driving the ball is much more difficult on the older tracks… they are way tighter and often times you must shape your tee shot. The newer tracks are usually wide open and straight off the tee… No shaping needed.
Like Inverarry C.C. in Ft. lauderdale where Jack won several times… He shot 62 out there… Par is 72 and it’s 7100 yds from the tips… He did that with persimmon… I’ve played it with persimmon and let me tell you… that’s a feat!!
Compared to TPC at Heron Bay in Ft. Lauderdale… where the Honda Classic used to be… Vijay shot I think 63 or 64 there when he won… Par 72 and it’s about 7200 yds from the tips…it’s wide open and 3 par 5’s are reachable in 2… There are no trees on the course and the fairways are flat… So much easier…
I’ve broken par at Heron Bay… I’ve never broken par at Inverarry from the tips… One bad drive and you’re out of bounds or dead in the trees… or in the water… Heron Bay has no out of bounds anywhere…
Point being, I think driving the ball is a lost art… I say they were better back then because the courses were much tighter back then to now… AND, back then they drove it even more accurately!!! No brainer…
The problem now is the courses are wide open… I say make 'em tight with high rough… I’m tired of hearing the pros complain when it’s hard… IT"S SUPPOSED TO BE HARD! YOU’RE A FUCKING PRO! 
Zack 
+1
Andy
I highly doubt you (or anyone) believes that. That makes about as much sense as saying “and yet it is only ever defense that has won a football game” or “and yet it is only ever offense that has won a football game”. Nobody honestly believes that. Yeah, putting is really important to winning, now more than ever. However, I’d contend that when Mac O’Grady won on Tour, it was IN SPITE OF putting. I might say the same about when Lag won on the Canadian Tour. They obviously had to have made some crucial putts the weeks they won, but averaging 30 or more putts per round is really giving up shots out there, so to still win speaks volumes about their ballstriking.
Maybe I’m interpreting your post wrong, and feel free to enlighten us as to what you meant if this is the case.
I also recognize the point that in the end, every tournament finishes with a winning putt dropping, but by your logic, if this is what you meant, I could say that closers and relievers are the only pitchers who ever win baseball games. Obviously, the final shot of a tournament is a putt. That doesn’t make it the primary causal factor in every golf tournament that has ever been won. I doubt this is what you meant, but I don’t see what you’re getting at otherwise.
i played a 2nd round q school course in nov/dec a week after q school was here and while it was a nice track, it wasn’t too challenging. i shot 76 or 77
having never played it, although i had walked a few holes the week before watching q school. i played the same tees as the pros on all but about 3-4 holes.
i shoot the same scores on my munis that are rated 4 or 5 shots lower. on the q school course putting on those greens made a world of difference and i may have had 1 or 2
approach shots that were mentally intimidating. none of the tee shots were. the munis i play have many more intimidating shots (maybe because i’ve played
them so many times that i 've screwed up so many holes 
)
the irony is the q-school course hosted the pga event down here for 2 or 3 years till they moved it across the street to a goat ranch because the tour thought
it was too tight and for many financial reasons i’m sure… i go out to the tournament every year to watch with some buddies and i wonder how anyone shoots over par out there.
Are you comparing a knock up game to q school?!
Out of interest, in what position would your 76 have left you if you’d shot it in q school?
Jsrich - every top player knows the importance of putting and the short game. full shots on average comprise significantly less than 50% of most golfers rounds.