Latest article from The Fried Egg discusses the effects of narrow fairways on field separation and identifying the best ball strikers. Has some data regarding these setups too, it’s quite interesting.
Can’t one also spin this to say that rough and narrowed fairways are working? If you let the elite players play from the shortgrass, they’re that much better and will dominate.
Introducing rough levels the playing field and places a premium again on hitting fairways?
Also I understand the point wasn’t to level playing fields, but rather identify the best ball strikers. I guess I’m asking for a tour perspective on set up - what do they want? To identify the best ball striker or create the most competitive playing environment? To me it is the latter.
dont understand how they make the conclusion of " if everyone is forced to hit it down the middle then only the long guys will thrive"
The entire point is the guy who hits it 285 will hit it down the middle more often than the guy who hits it 320.
it’s hard not to laugh at “muscular” dustin johnson or koepka perhaps thriving because of thick rough.
If you want to draw meaningful conclusions from these kind of analyses you’re going to have to control for events and be able to separate stats so you are comparing performance from the same rough. Obviously the rough at bethpage is a little different than the rough at augusta (or example a lot of the alternate field events usually don’t have bad rough) so if you’re comparing average prox the events a player plays (which are much different for a top 25 world guy vs 150) matter.
It seems non-intuitive to believe that somehow wide fairways rewards accuracy off the tee but narrow fairways don’t
why is the point to identify the best ball striker? It’s to identify the best golfer. those aren’t always the same thing. you can see huge variances in putting on a week to week basis and one guy can gain double digits strokes gained due to putting alone.
They want lots of birdies. All you have to do is watch one “live Under par” ad
Birdies hold the attention of a non golfer audience better than a bunch of struggling tour pros trying to grind over a 5 footer to make a bogey.
Stagner’s data suggests that at courses where the field hits a lot of fairways, the most talented iron players will be able to distinguish themselves. Further, recent trends at Trinity Forest suggest that wider fairways may produce more separation on leaderboards, offering a clearer picture of which players truly excelled in a given week.
One day people will learn that leaderboard separation is not a good thing for an entertainment product.
much more eloquent way of stating my point.
Bunch the leaderboard. Create drama.
then why bother with 72 hole events and not just 18 or 36 hole blasts?
If they wanted to do that, cool. I don’t care as long as there is drama.
If the PGA tour could haul off one day events, I am just picturing a sponsorship bonanza. They’d host 150 tournaments a year.
This argument is basically swapping out driving for ball-striking as the most important characteristic. So if that’s what you want to do, fine, but it doesn’t create a superior product, it’s swapping one for the other.
The idea that leaderboard separation somehow indicates how good the golf course is drives me insane.
I’m all for kneecapping Bryson, I don’t want a world in which he is #1
I would love to see 18 hole shootouts
RIP in peace my friend, you won’t like this fall
This could be fantastic. 4 x 18 hole rounds each week, with each round worth $250k to the winner of that “leg”, and include a “mega bonus” multiplier system. Win all 4 “legs” = 10x multiplier, 3 = 5x & 2 = 2x. If a guy goes wire to wire, he gets $10mil. It would introduce a lot of drama to rounds 1-3 that doesn’t exist today.
Yes this sounds so fucking sick
I’ll get the Saudis from PGL on the horn and pitch our new format to use instead of the team concept.
I think Twenty20 cricket is better than 5-day test cricket - I’d be down for 18 hole shootouts mixed into the season.