Tiger Woods day

First topic message reminder :

So today's the day, the Tiger returns.

So how well or how bad will he be ?

With such a small field, he couldn't have comeback into an easier tournament.

Well it might do, but my point was more to demonstrate that the other people considered to be longer hitters have poor accuracy too, so is Stenson much worse than them with the driver? I doubt it.

You also don't know if those players were also hitting 3w do you Mac?

No, but as robopz has pointed out Stensons with 8i from fairway vs Rory etc with pw from light rough is the real dilemma. Those stats don't distinguish between a bush and the light semi.

True, but I still can't find any stats which show DJ, Pubehead etc to be significantly more accurate with the driver at all.
Perhaps Stenson prefers being on the fairway, to DJ or Watson being miles off track?

super_realist wrote:Don't think anyone claimed he was as long with the 3 wood as many are with the driver.
More that he's not far behind as so as not to make too much difference with the approach shot.

This ^^^^^^. If he gives up 10 (or even 20 yards), he's such a good iron striker, it isn't making a huge difference. Stenson's reputation with driver is from some years ago when he had some pretty bad thoughts in his head with driver in his hands. FWIW, I don't think that's the same now at all.

super_realist wrote:Is Stenson really that much worse than DJ with driver? Johnson has never had a reputation for accuracy with the driver either..

Since there's no stat that breaks out what club they hit off the tee, we have to rely on our observations. And from mine, I'd have to say week In and week out, YES, Stenson really is that bad with the driver. He hits a few too many of them in just awful places.

Also... you swing guru's might be able to address this better than I, but a year or so ago when this was being discussed in another forum, they were saying Stenson has a much shallower angle of attack to the ball than the norm. Supposedly that's how he keeps it square through impact so long. If that's true (again I'm not qualified to say), then I could see how him hitting out of even light to moderate rough would be more problematic to him than others.

navyblueshorts wrote:
This ^^^^^^. If he gives up 10 (or even 20 yards), he's such a good iron striker, it isn't making a huge difference. Stenson's reputation with driver is from some years ago when he had some pretty bad thoughts in his head with driver in his hands. FWIW, I don't think that's the same now at all.

I agree to the extent him giving up 10-20 to most of them out there is completely overcome by his superior ball striking. That's why he's #4 in the world instead of much lower.

But the problem is he's given up 30-40 to the likes of Day, DJ & Rory and they're pretty decent ball strikers themselves. IMO that's the "other side" of why he's #4 in the world... Instead of higher.

Day and DJ are also inaccurate. Can't find any recent stats on Rory.

super_realist wrote:Day and DJ are also inaccurate. Can't find any recent stats on Rory.

sure they are, but the deal with them is they often have as good a birdie chance outta the rough with their wedges as Stenson does with his 8-9 out of the FW. And when they're in the FW they have a huge advantage.

It's pretty clear that those bombers have weeks where their driver misses cost them tournaments or maybe even making a cut.. But when they're on and keeping it in play, they're dominant. IMO the trend we're seeing is more guys who can do that a lot more often than we used to.

robopz wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:
This ^^^^^^. If he gives up 10 (or even 20 yards), he's such a good iron striker, it isn't making a huge difference. Stenson's reputation with driver is from some years ago when he had some pretty bad thoughts in his head with driver in his hands. FWIW, I don't think that's the same now at all.

I agree to the extent him giving up 10-20 to most of them out there is completely overcome by his superior ball striking. That's why he's #4 in the world instead of much lower.

But the problem is he's given up 30-40 to the likes of Day, DJ & Rory and they're pretty decent ball strikers themselves. IMO that's the "other side" of why he's #4 in the world... Instead of higher.

Robo I think what you said in that post probably sums it up pretty well. It is not that Stenson is doing anything wrong per se (and possibly shouldn't hit more drivers) but the difference between himself hitting mid iron to Rory et al's PW (from most lies) might be what would keep him from the very top of the pile.

That's not the difference though Mac, he's not hitting 6-7 to Mcilroys PW which is what a mid iron would be, he's hitting 8-9.

Mac... Exactly.

The dilemma for any medium length hitter today is we're starting to see more bombers with more complete skill sets.  A Stenson or a Spieth have to take advantage at venues that negate the long ball advantage,  catch the bombers off their games, or play near to perfection to beat them.  It can be done, we know that because they do it sometimes. And look at Spieth in 2015. It's just that IMO their opportunities will continue to get further and further in between unless there's a significant reversal in the trends toward the kinds of courses and setups they're facing more of today.

super_realist wrote:That's not the difference though Mac, he's not hitting 6-7 to Mcilroys PW which is what a mid iron would be, he's hitting 8-9.

agree with you there, it's just that at most venues these days those guys are as good out of the rough with wedges as Stenson is playing 2-3 more clubs out of the FWs.

And the other thing we haven't talked about is trajectory. I don't have to be a swing guru to observe even with the same clubs in hand, Stenson plays a lower trajectory than any of Rory, DJ or Day. That's could be a big advantage for Stenson in heavy winds, but how often do we really see those conditions? Not much. On firm greens those guys dropping moon-balls is another advantage.

Well, not in America particularly. I think the PGA ought to be taking the blame for the current state of the game a bit. I'm not saying it's boring, but like you say, favours the bigger hitters, which isn't all that inclusive and it isn't very interesting to watch.

The severe lack of diversity on the PGA tour in terms of courses makes it play into their hands. I'd like to see them make thicker rough, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more bunkering in fairways etc to counteract it and make it a more level playing field for all, but that doesn't really fit into the American psyche too much I suppose.

All that sounds good Super... Except if Rory, Day and DJ were playing as much on the ET as they do the PGA Tour, they'd probably be dominating even more. But I will agree to the extent if the PGAT were to bastardize classic layouts with windmills and clowns mouths like the USGA often does... It might negate the power hitter a bit more...

I'd like to see more courses like Chambers Bay - a lot of people thought that was tricked up with a few gimmicks but I thought it was stunning - and if JDay couldn't handle the elevations, then tough luck on him

Davie wrote:I'd like to see more courses like Chambers Bay - a lot of people thought that was tricked up with a few gimmicks but I thought it was stunning - and if JDay couldn't handle the elevations, then tough luck on him

I loved Chambers Bay as well.... except for the condition of the greens being an abomination...

Count me in as another chambers fan. Tweak the green speeds a bit and it is a perfect course for modern pro golf.

Apparently it was an abomination from a spectator and logistical viewpoint as well.
So that's three strikes against it for having failing grades in each facet; don't hear many rumours about a return visit.

I'm going to backtrack on something I've agreed with maybe a little too easily. While it's true  some of the PGA Tour courses are a bit cookie cutter, when you go through the list of venues, there's a BUNCH absolute gems among them.

Silverado - Beautiful track in Napa. A lot of unique holes.

Kapalua - Quintessential Island course with 800' of elevation changes. Can play easy or hard depending on the Trade or Kona winds.

Torrey Pines South - A brute of championship course with some incredible vistas of the West Coast.

Pebble Beach - INCREDIBLE - Breathtaking.

Riviera - Hogan's Alley... enough said

PGA National - A solid Florida Nicklaus design

Innesbrook - Another classic Florida Parkland Course

Austin CC - Two courses in one and a great representative of both Hill Country and River Country Golf

Augusta National - Nothing needs to be said.

Harbour Town - A shortish tactician's delight.

Quail Hollow - A highly regarded parkland course.

TPC Sawgrass - All you could ever want to handle with one unique hole after another.

Colonial - Hogan's Alley #2. An American Classic

Montreux G&CC - An absolute wonderful mountain course at elevation that nobody ever sees because it hosts an alternate event

Firestone - Another classic parkland layout.

IMO the only thing missing is one of the really tremendous American Southwest desert courses to add to this list. TPC Scottsdale & Summerlin just don't do Desert Golf justice. TPC Stadium in Palm Springs comes the closest, but there's probably 30 desert courses better than that one too... maybe more.  

Bottom line is every course on every Tour can't be a winner. But I'd put this collection up against any collection of golf courses on any Tour anywhere in the world.  We can't have Irish or Scottish links... but we've got everything else.

Agree about most of those, love Montreux! And also love the looks of Seaside and Jackson GC.
And it's not exactly a gem, but TPC River Highlands is hardly a bomber's paradise; a shot-maker's course in disguise.

super_realist wrote:
I'd like to see them make thicker rough, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more bunkering in fairways etc to counteract it and make it a more level playing field for all

You mean like the US Open?

Robo I'd say the European Tour is much more cookie cutter than the US. There are loads of classic courses in Europe (many many of course in GB & Ireland) but most of the tour is played on modern courses in Asia, and when we get to Europe the tournaments tend to be held on modern resort courses eg Nicklaus course at the London club, Palmer course at Vilamoura and K Club, Kyle Phillips the Grove, instead of the classics.

raycastleunited wrote:

super_realist wrote:
I'd like to see them make thicker rough, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more bunkering in fairways etc to counteract it and make it a more level playing field for all

You mean like the US Open?

I'm not sure that's what he means. They're often long as well as having really stupid rough and green speeds. Even if so, one tournament a year as a leveller isn't much to crow about.

Indeed Navy, the US Open is often made difficult through laughable greens.

Just grow the rough thick and narrow the fairways in more tournaments.

Super - I belong to a club that hosts PGA tournaments on occasion. If you required our club to narrow fairways for four rounds of golf, we would (I'm confident) pass on hosting events. I suspect there are a lot of clubs like ours.

The US Open, however, is a different story ... clubs know that tight fairways (if they don't already have them) and goofy fast greens are what is needed for that event. Merion, for example, took out 5 acres of fairway for the 2013 US Open and then replanted those 5 acres again. No small or inexpensive feat, but they certainly have the resources.

Growing in rough is easy and is something I would like to see more of. However, hit it far enough off target and you'll be where the crowds are and likely have a better recovery shot. Keep the crowds even further back and the event is less fan friendly. No easy answer.

SR, I understand that, but it is only once a year that you'd have to put up with it, you could grow the rough easily in a couple of weeks, and that would be a time it would be closed for members for preparation anyway so it wouldn't be getting in your way, they could then cut it down again afterwards, just like they did at Carnoustie.

We are in agreement Super!

I much prefer the type of courses where it isn't necessary to bash the ball as far as you can and puts a premium of finding the correct part of the fairway

Just like Harbour Town, no rough there either.
Never watched a tournament there, though, and the abundance of trees (before Hurricane Matthew anyway) probably means spectator sight-lines are lousy.

kwinigolfer wrote:Just like Harbour Town, no rough there either.
Never watched a tournament there, though, and the abundance of trees (before Hurricane Matthew anyway) probably means spectator sight-lines are lousy.

Yes and no on the sight lines... GREAT from the tees and you get closer to them on the greens than most other venues. But not so good viewing approach shots from one side or the other on most holes, and both sides on some, definitely blocked out by trees a lot of the time. One positive to that though is there's a lot of shots outta those trees just inside or just outside the roping. So you get to see more punches and shaped shots than you might at other venues. All in all, taking in the area, and the atmosphere of the event itself... a very good fan experience... but ONLY once you get out to the course. Getting out there can be a bitch.

It can be bad enough "getting out there" when there's NOT a tournament on!

Many of the greens you can get closer to are slightly elevated, so not sure what visibility would be like.
Not advocating it as a Major venue, but it just goes to show what can be achieved with good design and NO ROUGH! Pine straw a bit of a lottery, which I like too.

kwinigolfer wrote:It can be bad enough "getting out there" when there's NOT a tournament on!

Many of the greens you can get closer to are slightly elevated, so not sure what visibility would be like.
Not advocating it as a Major venue, but it just goes to show what can be achieved with good design and NO ROUGH! Tne straw a bit of a lottery, which I like too.

Great viewing vantage points for most every green, except maybe the 18th unless you have seating. While it's certainly not stadium golf there's a lot more elevated areas around most greens for viewing than you would think.  You're a little further away on the par-3's though. Watch closely this next year and you'll see what I mean.

Yeah, I've played it a couple of times and have the memory of pitching/chipping uphill. Oh well, hope to get to the Heritage before much longer.

kwinigolfer wrote:Yeah, I've played it a couple of times and have the memory of pitching/chipping uphill. Oh well, hope to get to the Heritage before much longer.

I misunderstood that you've been out there. Then you know the drill on Hilton Head. I've only been around during tournament time and it's a real cluster then. Lots of good restaurants and such, that is if you can get in them. We used to stay up at the Bluewater Marina.

I've mostly stayed at Palmetto Dunes (about 15 times); ticks all the boxes for us, not to mention being closer to the bridge. Great for all the family and I really like their Fazio course.
First time I went was Christmas early 80's, everywhere frozen up, drove to Bardmoor outside Tampa instead, almost the same thing. Summer or autumn for us now.

We're heading for palmetto dunes in April.  First time going there and it could also be the last depending on how mr. p copes with the alligators.  He has a thing about alligators and snakes !

Plunky wrote:He has a thing about alligators and snakes !

Super has the same thing about Tigers