Soly, TC and Randy offer some quick thoughts on Matt Fitzpatrick’s win at the Valspar and some of the other contenders at Innisbrook before we go through our Masters Power Rankings as we’re three weeks away from the first major of the year. From there we react to the NFL Films Chasing Sunday project, other tour news and notes (Jerry Tarde column link), the LPGA Founders Cup duel between Hyo Joo Kim and Nelly Korda, Bryson and Rahm at LIV South Africa, and more
Fitzy
Rosie
Cam Young
Ludvig
Russ Henley
My five winners picks.
Cam Young
Patrick Reed
Jon Rahm
Matthew Fitzpatrick
Ludvig Aberg
X factor if he Top 10s the week before Augusta Brooks Koepka
Re: Bryson’s comments & distance discussion/rollback/catch-all term from distance being a problem etc etc etc.
Not looking to change minds, but help me understand what I’m missing. Am I flawed in what I understand as being the game of golf? My read of the data? Or do we just differ in opinion of what we want/need (speaking financially for both local courses and pro tours) golf to be?
Soly et al, like I still just cannot get past the disconnect between the value of distance report, distance insights report, the Impact of Distance Changes in Professional Golf; With a Focus on the ShotLink Era article, and the conclusions section of the distance insights report. The data doesn’t support the USGA’s stated conclusions and I turn to Dr. Mackenzie’s insights into “self-imposed” (e.g. Fino) speed limits currently employed by some pros as an indication of players saying “we recognize the importance of distance, but the theory of diminishing returns has application here.”
So distance is going to remain a problem given the current benefit v. risk model of golf on the tour, even if an equipment based distance limiter is employed. Shorter ball? swing harder/hit the stack for speed gains. 3w heads being the limit size-wise? less drag = higher swing speeds, assuming shaft length remains constant, = some players can find the centre better than others = some players hit 3w sized heads significantly further than other players hitting 3w sized heads = same-ish distance disparity we have now but with extra steps and some pros becoming disadvantaged arbitrarily (e.g. Brooke Henderson after the driver shaft length limit change). But given that the penalty for missing the fairway (which I will simplify as avg/median rough height) has been going down over the decades, the USGA can’t claim that distance is a problem, outright, when part of the reason more players are relying more on distance off the tee is because the PGA Tour is incentivizing them to do so (short rough, means less of a penalty to miss the fairway, so why not hit a knuckle-bomb when the benefits out-weigh the risks, which seems to be increasing in its regularity). I see this as a disconnect between the USGA’s data and their conclusions, but also between the USGA/RA and the PGA Tour’s perceived “best test of golf” week in and week out. Which begs the question; are further distance gains really undesirable? or is it that any further advantage being given toward distance in the current benefit v. risk model on tour is undesirable?
I live on the same block as Big Randy when it comes to the proper test of golf = pure and unadulterated carnage, and I have little sympathy for players not wanting to be embarrassed (within reason, we do not need a repeat of the 2023 Women’s DIII championship). So change the calculus. Use playing conditions to change the risk v. reward, grow the rough/bake the greens and make spin a problem (like in the women’s game) and that, may, bring us closer to the golf of yester-year. Assuming the style of golf played in yester-year is the commonly agreed upon “purest” form of golf (like wood bats in the MLB and MiLB).
Now I’m not looking to give Bryson the benefit of the doubt here, but I’m guessing (or hoping? for all those physics-bros out there) that, given the complexity of the topic, he reverted to answering a simpler question in his response. Namely, do you see the USGA/RA’s push for a reduction in distance as being desirable? Which, obviously, the ex-WLD pro would say no, fans dig the long ball. Thus, is the USGA/RA solving for the problem of distance? With distance being just the carry and total numbers on a trackman? Or the problem of distance being a facet through which lower scores can be achieved because of the “natural” (“_” because its not technically natural, the PGA Tour/tournament committees get to set the conditions - weather) evolution of the game and the lower risk of being out of position off the tee? My current stance is that they want the later, but their solution only addresses the trackman scenario.
And for the second point regarding golf course footprint size, that is not born out in the USGA’s data. Hey, maybe we do want to shrink the footprint of golf courses, reduce resource requirements, cap ex, and so on. I am here for that talk. But there isn’t an overall trend that golf courses, in general, are getting larger footprints (longer, sure, but not necessarily larger).
Again, not looking to change minds here. Just wanting to air out my side and see why it seems like I’m on the other side of the line on this.