Bryson DeChambeau

Yeh it’s definitely not science and it’s embarrassing when people call it as such.

It’s just a better approach to analytics and playing percentages.

Golf in fairness is a mile behind sports like Soccer, Rugby, Baseball, American Football and Basketball in it.

6 protein shakes a day!!!

slave1 wrote: »

These guys are the best of the best, they should be hitting it further and further, they are the elite.
Bryson's alterations will have zero impact on the likes of us so his distance not an issue

Ever increasing distance is an issue for the game though, many players including McIlroy have said its a problem.
Note there is no issue with some being longer than others, the problem is when they are making a mockery of golf courses..."whats a dogleg"?

the.red.baron wrote: »

in fact the gap in something like running is miles beyond what it would be in golf

Its not the gap thats the problem though, its what the maximum distance means for the future of the game.

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not the gap thats the problem though, its what the maximum distance means for the future of the game.

it means lower scores for those who can hit further if just as accurate as the shorter hitter


same as always


you can also get fitter and stronger if you wish to keep up with the big hitters


if they can go long and straight in the fairway, they should have an advantage to this difficult skill

blue note wrote: »

No, and I don't see the pros ever competing with long drive guys in terms of distance either. One of the reasons being the importance of accuracy in real golf.

However, when you can see lads carrying the ball 400 yards, I think it's fair to say that the pros haven't maxed out their driving distance. If it's muscles, or lifting the left foot on the back swing or whatever that gets the long drive guys more distance, I can see the pros looking at it to see how they can get more swing speed in a controlled manner.

Oh agreed, there is more in there for lots of them, which is why I think the game needs to take steps to dial it back but maintain an advantage for longer hitters.

Limiting the number of dimples on the ball would be one way, it would also reward accuracy over distance (painful hitting a ball with fewer dimples out of the rough)

The main problem is that the penalty for not hitting the fairway is far too low. 20 yards into the rough these guys are getting lies that are far too playable

Bryson was 27th last week in fairways hit, not in the top 100 season to date. If the rough was a proper length then he and others would need find a better solution than bomb and gouge

GreeBo wrote: »

Ever increasing distance is an issue for the game though, many players including McIlroy have said its a problem.
Note there is no issue with some being longer than others, the problem is when they are making a mockery of golf courses..."whats a dogleg"?

Can this not be fixed with better course design. Listened to a new podcasts recently, particularly Peter Kostis and he views distance as a skill so why punish it.

Maybe better design. Let him hit the ball 360 but if he doesn't land in a fairway he should be struggling in rough but unfortunately thats not the case. I think that is more problematic than the distance. Great design beats distance.

Smaller example would be last weeks course had a 215 yard par 3. Wide green with a bunker front left. Pointless in my view. Think the players all week smashed 5 iron up there and tried to two putt. Why not have it 120 with a disgusting run off area where you dare not go left/right etc.

Anyway i'm rambling and definitely don't mean to be having a go at you. I just think the distance is a problem argument is wrong

GreeBo wrote: »

You are missing the point I have made already.
There is *zero* issue with some people being longer than others, the problem is that what longer means keep increasing and its no viable for courses to keep up.

It means more expensive alterations to golf courses to make them viable for the pros to play on.
It means much more expensive (money and environmentally) courses to maintain
It means longer and longer time needed to play a round of golf


If you could kick a GAA ball over the bar from your own goal line, do you not thing changes would be brought in, for the good of the game?

its the same problem in golf, skill is being eroded in favour of distance, because distance, right now, trumps everything else.

I basically agree when this. On a side note, it's often spoken about in GAA how much further the sliotar now travels. Back in the day 65s were difficult. Now you'd expect them to be put over in an u14s match. In hurling this is a great thing. If not you could pack the defence and just defend inside your own 65. The fact that guys can put it over from their own 65 given a bit of space forces teams to spread out around the pitch more. It makes it a far more open and exciting game.

But back to the golf - limitations on the ball in the professional game definitely seems the way to go. The problem with distance at the moment is that it's disproportionately rewarded. If you're not hitting the ball 300 yards it pretty much rules you out of half the tournaments every year. It's a shame that lads like like Donald can't compete anymore.

If the ball was altered and took 10% of the distance off players, the bigger hitters would still have a huge advantage. But maybe other guys would be able to compete against them because they're a brilliant putter or iron player.

Iang87 wrote: »

Can this not be fixed with better course design. Listened to a new podcasts recently, particularly Peter Kostis and he views distance as a skill so why punish it.

Not at all trying to punish it, the long guys will still be long but they dont need to be as long as they are now.
What does "better course design" mean for all the existing courses? They all would have to undergo massive capital and operating expense.

Iang87 wrote: »

Maybe better design. Let him hit the ball 360 but if he doesn't land in a fairway he should be struggling in rough but unfortunately thats not the case. I think that is more problematic than the distance. Great design beats distance.

I don't think that addresses the underlying issue, if you keep hitting the ball further, you keep having to lengthen courses, which is not feasible.

Iang87 wrote: »

Smaller example would be last weeks course had a 215 yard par 3. Wide green with a bunker front left. Pointless in my view. Think the players all week smashed 5 iron up there and tried to two putt. Why not have it 120 with a disgusting run off area where you dare not go left/right etc.

While I dont necessarily disagree, I think you need to have them hitting more than SW/LW, they are just too good.

Iang87 wrote: »

Anyway i'm rambling and definitely don't mean to be having a go at you. I just think the distance is a problem argument is wrong

So what about the associated cost and waste, environmental impact and the forced obsolescence of many courses?
I dont care about how far the ball goes, I care about the impact that has.

callaway92 wrote: »

Just going from my own experience. I work in Sports Analytics, focusing on Soccer, Rugby (Union and League), Golf, Tennis, Cricket and the Major League Sports, and the least money invested in it comes from Golf easily.

Granted, for Golf, individual players aren't clients of mine, but Media companies, Betting companies, Fantasy Sports companies and Coaches are.

Golf is niche on a professional level, versus soccer the nfl etc, it's comparable to Tennis, the numbers who watch it and the revenue is tiny in comparison



but the golf manufacturers pump plenty of money and the sports itself is statstastic


you have average golfers using GPS devices and lasers to track them and get range slope etc


No average person in the these other sports use much if any technology



the manufacture of the clubs gets plenty of money pumped into it, and you can analyse the golf swing in a way those sports only dream of

the.red.baron wrote: »

Golf is niche on a professional level, versus soccer the nfl etc, it's comparable to Tennis, the numbers who watch it and the revenue is tiny in comparison



but the golf manufacturers pump plenty of money and the sports itself is statstastic


you have average golfers using GPS devices and lasers to track them and get range slope etc


No average person in the these other sports use much if any technology



the manufacture of the clubs gets plenty of money pumped into it, and you can analyse the golf swing in a way those sports only dream of

From the tech and data involved in all of the Sports I've listed, bar Tennis, pound-for-pound Golf is so far behind them it's crazy.

Why are you bringing average people into this? We were speaking about Bryson DeChambeau - At the top-level, Golf is so far behind the other Sports. It's my favourite Sport and that might be one of the reasons why; because it's not fully down to a tee yet (which players constantly try to perfect).

GreeBo wrote: »

Not at all trying to punish it, the long guys will still be long but they dont need to be as long as they are now.
What does "better course design" mean for all the existing courses? They all would have to undergo massive capital and operating expense.


I don't think that addresses the underlying issue, if you keep hitting the ball further, you keep having to lengthen courses, which is not feasible.


While I dont necessarily disagree, I think you need to have them hitting more than SW/LW, they are just too good.



So what about the associated cost and waste, environmental impact and the forced obsolescence of many courses?
I dont care about how far the ball goes, I care about the impact that has.

I just think lengthening the course is the easy option and the most boring from a spectator view.

Squeeze the fairways tighter in the landing areas. Put a few mature trees in areas of the course where if you go to close you'e to come under or whip around but if you're far enough back you can go over. Put a few deep bunkers in landing areas. These are relatively simple things

On the par 3 point, I think you can have them hitting LW and GW into them. 12th at Augusta, 17th at Sawgrass, 8th at Troon, 7th at Pebble. All relatively short holes that absolutely punish. I'd rather see that than milling a 5 iron 220 yards into a green/bunker. I understand those holes can't be on every course because a few have natural features that can't really be replicated.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you have to keep lengthening the course if players keep hitting it further and further, unless you bring in internal OOB, guys will just cut corners of doglegs, who cares if you are in the rough if you are hitting a LW compared to the rest of them hitting a 7i?

Sure you can add one off short par 3's but you cant put 3-4 of them on a course realistically.

Couldn't they make they rough deeper? Like in Paris for the Ryder Cup. It doesn't have to be that extreme but that showed one way of penalising missing the fairways