Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Jason Topp on December 10, 2018, 09:58:58 AM
-
Scores were low compared to par in Web.com qualifying. Does that mean the course presented an inadequate test? If they would have labelled par as 68 because par 5's play shorter in the desert, two under par would have been required to qualify.
-
It's my opinion that the set ups for Web.com events are more responsible for the gained length of driver stats on tour than the ball or equipment. Every course plays at its easiest all year during tour week. The fairways are firmer, the greens are smoother, the rough is pure and shorter and pins are birdierber. Clearly players learn that without distance you be folding shirts, or building your dream course is so lucky. Distance is King if you want to make the big show.
-
IMO the Web.com tour has a large amount of guys who have a big strength, but also some glaring holes. Some weeks their holes are masked, as the bomber has a hot week with the putter, or the guy who is great on the greens but struggles scrambling goes bezerk on GIR's. However, the consistency is a struggle for they have a weakness (which is only in comparison to their peers not us amateurs).
I caddied for a friend from HS several years during PGA Q school and really was thoroughly impressed with the game of these guys. They are a break away from the tour.
A side note I think the 125 should be taken down to maybe 75, or at least down to 100. Give these young guys more shots for starts and keeping their cards via more starts.
-
Agree completely on less guaranteed slots. I would even go back to 60. The tour is too much of a closed shop with too many journeymen holding their cards but never really having a chance to do anything special. Would rather see more fresh blood.
-
Low blow Jaka
-
Assuming they played the Blacks, its 73.6/133. Torrey Pines South is 78.2/144, so it certainly seems it wasn't a tough test.
At the end of the day, why does relation to par really matter? They all have to go around, lowest X scores get in.
P.S. The PGA tour doesn't even do Q school anymore, this was just to get on next years Web.com tour, so I don't see how the older guys on the PGA tour are being protected. If you can't finish top 50 on the web.com tour do you belong in the big show?
How many 2017-18 PGA TOUR cards will be awarded?
A total of 50 PGA TOUR cards will be awarded.
- The 25 leading money winners from the Web.com Tour Regular Season are guaranteed PGA TOUR cards (The 25).
- Another 25 cards will go to those players who earn the most cumulative money in the four Finals events (The Finals 25).
-
Side story is Cody Blick. His clubs were stolen the night before the final round, three stokes behind the final qualifying spot. Shot 63 with borrowed clubs making the cut.
-
Assuming they played the Blacks, its 73.6/133. Torrey Pines South is 78.2/144, so it certainly seems it wasn't a tough test.
At the end of the day, why does relation to par really matter? They all have to go around, lowest X scores get in.
P.S. The PGA tour doesn't even do Q school anymore, this was just to get on next years Web.com tour, so I don't see how the older guys on the PGA tour are being protected. If you can't finish top 50 on the web.com tour do you belong in the big show?
How many 2017-18 PGA TOUR cards will be awarded?
A total of 50 PGA TOUR cards will be awarded.
- The 25 leading money winners from the Web.com Tour Regular Season are guaranteed PGA TOUR cards (The 25).
- Another 25 cards will go to those players who earn the most cumulative money in the four Finals events (The Finals 25).
Kalen,
What I'm proposing is the #76-125 or at least #101-125 PGA Tour Fed Ex Cup placeholders have to go qualify again at the Web.com Tour Finals. This is the series of 3-4 tournaments where the top 75 on the Web.com tour and #126-200 on the PGA Tour now compete for the PGA Tour cards. In essence the top 25 from the Web.com regular season are already getting a PGA card for next year, just competing for priority rank in the finals. There are 25 additional cards for the rest of the field open. Whoever doesn't make the top 25 of those not already qualifying in the Web.com regular season, has to go through the Web.com qualifying school.
IMO the turnover is healthy for young players to cycle into an opportunity more easily, while weeding out those PGA Tour players who aren't performing. There are many more ways to keep your PGA Tour card other than finishing in the top 125 as we all know as well. https://www.pgatour.com/news/2018/priority-ranking-2018-19-season.html
So the mechanism now for young players to get starts on the PGA can be increased by lowering the automatic renewal of top 125 down to 100 or 75. This would still gives those from 76-125 a chance at 25 additional cards given at the Web.com Tour Finals competing along with the top 75 from the Web.com regular season finishers. So are the #76-125 PGA Tour players better than the top 75 on the Web.com tour? Well we will see for they have to prove it over a series of tournaments. Competition is healthy and the cream will rise to the top when they are tested.
-
The issue with the low scores is that it usually means that their entire games were not tested. If a course is too easy for the event, there will be an abnormal %age of GIR and it will come down to a putting contest.
However, it's not like the PGA tour setups will be that much different, except for majors and a few other events.
-
The issue with the low scores is that it usually means that their entire games were not tested. If a course is too easy for the event, there will be an abnormal %age of GIR and it will come down to a putting contest.
However, it's not like the PGA tour setups will be that much different, except for majors and a few other events.
Peter -
That was my initial reaction but I am not sure it holds up. If you retroactively label par as 68, scores would have been higher in relationship to par but the players hit the exact same shots. The test would be the same.
-
Jeff,
I get what you're saying. But if these young players can't get past the #126-200 on the PGA tour to get one of the remaining 25 cards, I don't see how their chances would improve by inviting 100-125, much less 75-100. Unless you're talking about handing out 75 cards for this tournament...25 + the 50 these other guys would have already had (76-125).
But the reason Q school qualifying was changed in the first place is because history showed the better indicator of a "good player" was a full season of results as opposed to 10-12 rounds over 3-4 tournaments. And while I couldn't find any specific data on it, I'd bet the year long top 25 Web.com guys have a much better Tour success rate the following year over the next 25 who get in via the end of year tournament series.
P.S. I do think its a lot harder to have success on the PGA Tour. If you're on the Web.com tour and there are say 5 guys who are dominating and taking all the high finishes, the following year those guys are gone. But not so on the PGA Tour, you have to keep playing those guys year after year.
P.P.S I think it'd be interesting to see how well the 126-150 do the following year on the web.com tour and how many get thier cards right back.
-
The top players on tour last year had an average distance to the pin of less than 160 yards after their drives (including par 5s). This is the Dustin/ Brooks/ Rory/ Bubba crew. And I'm sure that they scaled back a significant portion of the time for accuracy. With these guys, that means that they average about a smooth 9 iron. So, say a couple mid irons into par 5s and SW/PW into most par 4s.
This is why they have to tuck the hell out of pins to even keep scores at -20 for an event.
Just as a comparison. In 1980, using the average PGA tour driving distance and the 7,040 yards of Augusta National that year, less the par 3s, the average player would have had an average approach shot of 195 yards in that Masters tournament. So, Seve got it to 13 under with those dynamics.
Mike Reid would have had an average approach of 207 in that tournament. With him and with his 1980 blades, that it probably a 1-iron.
-
I can’t believe the Tour would rather see Tony Finau hitting a 6 iron from 205 than Radar hitting a 1 iron...
-
Kalen,
Yes I am saying there are more than 25 cards available if you make the 76-125 go through the Web.com Tour Finals and make it 75 spots available. Also the previous Q school isn't similar to the Web.com Tour Finals. The previous Q school was 108 holes played on consecutive days at the same course. The Web.com Tour Finals are separate tournaments over 3-4 weeks.
I don't have data either about how the 126-200 that went to web.com and earned their cards back. I would just like to see more opportunities for young players to have starts on the big tour and making 76-125 qualify via the Web.com Tour Finals is a step in the right direction. If the 76-125 are better, we will find out over 3-4 tournaments against the Web.com guys. Reward competence by proving it. It isn't special to get 125 place on the PGA Tour where the guy probably only made 1/3 of the cuts and maybe had 2 top tens perhaps.
If anyone has numbers on this we would love to see it.
-
Jeff,
Are you aware that our own Zac Blair finished 126th in 2017 and was able to get enough invites on the PGA Tour in 2018 to skip the Web.com until the finals? It's grossly brutal to finish in the top 125.
-
My apologies, looks like Zac did dip his toe in the Web for a few events in 2018. I thought I was a better fan than that. To make up for my folly, next year during the event at Victoria he is welcome to stay in my house. His full stats are below.
https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.40058.zac-blair.html
-
Jeff,
Are you aware that our own Zac Blair finished 126th in 2017 and was able to get enough invites on the PGA Tour in 2018 to skip the Web.com until the finals? It's grossly brutal to finish in the top 125.
So he had some status or sponsor exemptions to get PGA Tour starts in 2018 I guess? What was the scenario? I know there are all sorts of ways for players to maintain conditional status if they finish outside the top 125 still. Maybe Zac met those I assume?
It is uber competitive without a doubt, but an entire season of finishes are what they are. As Bill Parcells always said, "you are your record".
-
My apologies, looks like Zac did dip his toe in the Web for a few events in 2018. I thought I was a better fan than that. To make up for my folly, next year during the event at Victoria he is welcome to stay in my house. His full stats are below.
https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.40058.zac-blair.html (https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.40058.zac-blair.html)
gotcha... well he probably had to if he wasn't otherwise exempt for the PGA Tour event. Commendable to keep grinding.... it certainly isn't an easy way of life.
-
It's right between professional wrestling and poker. Hard way to make an easy living. That is exactly why Zac wants to own and operate a golf course. The money rolls in like four footers to make a cut. The kid must enjoy pain.
-
Nearly 20 year old article about bowling. With a few edits, it could also describe golf. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/21/nyregion/perfection-made-easy-bowling-a-300-game-just-isn-t-the-feat-it-used-to-be.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/21/nyregion/perfection-made-easy-bowling-a-300-game-just-isn-t-the-feat-it-used-to-be.html)
In bowling, the dynamics changed through technology and pandering to amateurs to make it more fun. The results are that the skill that used to be required to convert various spares (i.e. bowling's version of scrambling) is nearly gone at the top levels. Now it is a power game that has become clinical. The PBA fights technology by increasing the difficulty of the oil patterns, but it is a losing battle.
All throughout this tech/ scoring inflation, the popularity has steadily decreased. Pros used to be celebrities and made much more than NFL and MLB players. Now, they have 2nd jobs. Outside the top 10 players, the average PBA income is something like $7K/year.
-
Sorry, duplicate post.
-
My apologies, looks like Zac did dip his toe in the Web for a few events in 2018. I thought I was a better fan than that. To make up for my folly, next year during the event at Victoria he is welcome to stay in my house. His full stats are below.
https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.40058.zac-blair.html (https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.40058.zac-blair.html)
John:
I know Zac.
Unless you're kidding (and you probably are), I'll pass along your kind offer!
I know you would enjoy talking with him about The Buck Club.
WW
-
Of course I'm not kidding. My house sits on the local Langford/Moreau. Zac would love it. I just hope that he isn't allergic to cats.
-
Kalen,
Yes I am saying there are more than 25 cards available if you make the 76-125 go through the Web.com Tour Finals and make it 75 spots available. Also the previous Q school isn't similar to the Web.com Tour Finals. The previous Q school was 108 holes played on consecutive days at the same course. The Web.com Tour Finals are separate tournaments over 3-4 weeks.
I don't have data either about how the 126-200 that went to web.com and earned their cards back. I would just like to see more opportunities for young players to have starts on the big tour and making 76-125 qualify via the Web.com Tour Finals is a step in the right direction. If the 76-125 are better, we will find out over 3-4 tournaments against the Web.com guys. Reward competence by proving it. It isn't special to get 125 place on the PGA Tour where the guy probably only made 1/3 of the cuts and maybe had 2 top tens perhaps.
If anyone has numbers on this we would love to see it.
FWIW
My second year on the PGA Tour 1992, I believe I made 19 cuts and finished 128th, missing exempt status by less than 3000$
In my opinion, the idea that some exempt players are glorified placeholders keeping somebody back is just not correct.
I missed three years with an injury from late ‘97-2000 came out and had to play Buy.com in 2000. Could not practice much or play many practice rounds due to injury recovery. Could only play two weeks in a row, and I finished Easily in the top 40.
It was a different generation, and there are definitely more good players in my opinion,
But I wasn’t close to the player I was prior to injury, and was very competitive, with more high finishes that season than I expected given my physical limitations. And I was one of those guys dismissed in your post
I honestly believe some really do not know how good some of the guys you think are dead weight are....they’re just not as good as the great players.
Just like the top guys are a different level then most of the rest of the leagues players in every other sport.
-
Kalen,
Yes I am saying there are more than 25 cards available if you make the 76-125 go through the Web.com Tour Finals and make it 75 spots available. Also the previous Q school isn't similar to the Web.com Tour Finals. The previous Q school was 108 holes played on consecutive days at the same course. The Web.com Tour Finals are separate tournaments over 3-4 weeks.
I don't have data either about how the 126-200 that went to web.com and earned their cards back. I would just like to see more opportunities for young players to have starts on the big tour and making 76-125 qualify via the Web.com Tour Finals is a step in the right direction. If the 76-125 are better, we will find out over 3-4 tournaments against the Web.com guys. Reward competence by proving it. It isn't special to get 125 place on the PGA Tour where the guy probably only made 1/3 of the cuts and maybe had 2 top tens perhaps.
If anyone has numbers on this we would love to see it.
FWIW
My second year on the PGA Tour 1992, I believe I made 19 cuts and finished 128th, missing exempt status by less than 3000$
In my opinion, the idea that some exempt players are glorified placeholders keeping somebody back is just not correct.
I missed three years with an injury from late ‘97-2000 came out and had to play Buy.com in 2000. Could not practice much or play many practice rounds due to injury recovery. Could only play two weeks in a row, and I finished Easily in the top 40.
It was a different generation, and there are definitely more good players in my opinion,
But I wasn’t close to the player I was prior to injury, and was very competitive, with more high finishes that season than I expected given my physical limitations. And I was one of those guys dismissed in your post
I honestly believe some really do not know how good some of the guys you think are dead weight are....they’re just not as good as the great players.
Just like the top guys are a different level then most of the rest of the leagues players in every other sport.
Game. Set. Match.
-
I don't see how scores, relative to par, indicate how good of a 'test' a course is. Par is just a number. Would it be a better test if the course played to a par 64? Players played against each other, not the course.
-
The ability to go low is a skill that not every golfer at the elite level possesses. Your baby changes as you get further under par. Par does indeed matter. The Web.com has chosen to reward this type of golfer.
-
The ability to go low is a skill that not every golfer at the elite level possesses. Your baby changes as you get further under par. Par does indeed matter. The Web.com has chosen to reward this type of golfer.
Agree 100%.
I wish Mark Broadie could analyze how players score on 525 yard par 4's versus 525 yard par 5's...and more importantly to me, how they scored on the following hole or two. I think the pressure to make a birdie is sometimes followed simply by relief whereas the pressure to make a par on a tough hole is a momentum builder if you pull it off.
-
The ability to go low is a skill that not every golfer at the elite level possesses. Your baby changes as you get further under par. Par does indeed matter. The Web.com has chosen to reward this type of golfer.
I also agree 100% (98%?) but I think your last sentence needs tweaking.
It's not so much that the Web.com tour rewards this type of player, IMO. I think it's more likely that there's less caution on the Web tour than the PGAT. The rewards are so outsized at the top that every player is shooting at every flag on every hole.
It's as though the players are in a sprint on Web.com tour hoping to win a spot in a marathon on the PGAT.
-
Pat said:
"I honestly believe some really do not know how good some of the guys you think are dead weight are....they’re just not as good as the great players. Just like the top guys are a different level then most of the rest of the leagues players in every other sport."
Thank you for the post and well said about top level players when compared to others on the PGATour. If one of these young guns can't dominate on the minor league tour, where the great players aren't lurking week after week, I don't see any reason to indicate they would be competitive at the next level.
-
The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.
-
The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.
Is that so?
I think 20 yard wide fairways with 6 inch rough would do the trick ;D ;D
-
The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.
Is that so?
I think 20 yard wide fairways with 6 inch rough would do the trick ;D ;D
Which only goes to prove that the Web.com can advance the type of player that they choose. They have chosen length over accuracy. It's only natural that players would in turn focus on that aspect of the game that brings success. Tighten up the set ups and the equipment "problem" will go away.
-
On a related note...this happened last week. JK is that you!??! ;D ;D
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/golf-club-thief-dubbed-the-doof-of-hazzard-caught-thanks-to-funny-video-posted-by-police/ar-BBQQLmO?li=BBnba9I
-
Kalen,
Yes I am saying there are more than 25 cards available if you make the 76-125 go through the Web.com Tour Finals and make it 75 spots available. Also the previous Q school isn't similar to the Web.com Tour Finals. The previous Q school was 108 holes played on consecutive days at the same course. The Web.com Tour Finals are separate tournaments over 3-4 weeks.
I don't have data either about how the 126-200 that went to web.com and earned their cards back. I would just like to see more opportunities for young players to have starts on the big tour and making 76-125 qualify via the Web.com Tour Finals is a step in the right direction. If the 76-125 are better, we will find out over 3-4 tournaments against the Web.com guys. Reward competence by proving it. It isn't special to get 125 place on the PGA Tour where the guy probably only made 1/3 of the cuts and maybe had 2 top tens perhaps.
If anyone has numbers on this we would love to see it.
FWIW
My second year on the PGA Tour 1992, I believe I made 19 cuts and finished 128th, missing exempt status by less than 3000$
In my opinion, the idea that some exempt players are glorified placeholders keeping somebody back is just not correct.
I missed three years with an injury from late ‘97-2000 came out and had to play Buy.com in 2000. Could not practice much or play many practice rounds due to injury recovery. Could only play two weeks in a row, and I finished Easily in the top 40.
It was a different generation, and there are definitely more good players in my opinion,
But I wasn’t close to the player I was prior to injury, and was very competitive, with more high finishes that season than I expected given my physical limitations. And I was one of those guys dismissed in your post
I honestly believe some really do not know how good some of the guys you think are dead weight are....they’re just not as good as the great players.
Just like the top guys are a different level then most of the rest of the leagues players in every other sport.
Couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. Anyone who can win money on any tour is so good as to not merit derision for how they are somehow deficient for not being better.
-
The technology only continues to advance... Courses for the PGA Tour and Web.com need to be longer and harder, there is no other way.
Is that so?
I think 20 yard wide fairways with 6 inch rough would do the trick ;D ;D
Which only goes to prove that the Web.com can advance the type of player that they choose. They have chosen length over accuracy. It's only natural that players would in turn focus on that aspect of the game that brings success. Tighten up the set ups and the equipment "problem" will go away.
I don’t think the setups have a huge impact in this equation. Long hitters by modern standards play just fine out of deep rough,
As a competitive amateur, I am never more impressed that the ability of really strong golfers to hit out of deep rough. One of the most impressive shots I ever saw was Hank Kuenhe hitting a wedge out of 6 inch rough like it was no big deal.
-
I don't see how scores, relative to par, indicate how good of a 'test' a course is. Par is just a number. Would it be a better test if the course played to a par 64? Players played against each other, not the course.
I agree that par doesn't matter. If you called a course a par 18, the golf wouldn't change at all. On long par 4s vs short par 5s, I'm sure they set the pins up differently though.
But to me, the issue is that the gross scoring is decreasing to a point where it's mostly GIRs and easy ones at that. When the top 5 players on the PGA tour average a 2nd shot of a PW/9i into all par 4s and 5s, the courses are no longer good tests. They aren't testing much except the players' ability to throw darts and make 10 foot putts.
On the web.com, 34 players averaged less than 70 shots per round for the season. In 1990, 0 players did. In 2000, 0 players did. Guys are just bullying the golf courses now. They aren't really being tested. 1 player shot 41 straight rounds of par or better. A guy went 220 consecutive holes without a 3-putt. Someone hit 38 straight greens in regulation (and I'm sure a lot of them in under regulation). In fact, 96 players on the Web.com tour this year had at least 1 streak of 18 straight GIR.
I know it is an opinion, but to me, this kind of golf is dull at hell to watch. I want to see some level of adversity out there to see who has the heart of a champion. I don't want to watch a putting contest.
-
Todays equipment/ball is like........
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61naW72TnJL._SY445_.jpg)
-
Peter -
Eye-popping. Even more so when you do historical look-backs. Wow.
Golf should be a difficult, challenging game. When it ceases to be, something has gone badly off the rails.
Bob
-
Excellent last few posts gents.
I think with most things in my life, its all about balance. Just like its not interesting to watch players hit driver/wedge on every par 4s, it wouldn't be any better to watch players hit driver/3 wood or long iron into every par 4. Having a nice balance where players use every club in the bag is ideal.
James,
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of deep rough. The US team got slaughtered in the Ryder cup largely because they couldn't handle it. But I would concur pros can handle normal length rough far better than even top AMs.
-
You guys remind me of the suicidal poet waxing on about love. When exactly did it get too easy and why can't Tiger seem to figure it out? Golf that is.
-
I think with most things in my life, its all about balance. Just like its not interesting to watch players hit driver/wedge on every par 4s, it wouldn't be any better to watch players hit driver/3 wood or long iron into every par 4. Having a nice balance where players use every club in the bag is ideal.
Exactly. This is entertainment after all. Variety makes it much more entertaining. The ideal from my perspective is to see players have to spend a decent amount of energy strategizing/ managing their game, hitting a variety of shots from a variety of distances, and having to have the full short game arsenal.
When you think of the most thrilling shots in history, it is things that happened despite adversity: Nicklaus hitting the pin with a 1 iron, Watson chipping in out of the deep rough, Tiger chipping in by using creativity off of a shelf, Bubba hooking a shot 40 yards from off the pine straw, Mickelson from the pine straw, Seve's parking lot shot, Tway's bunker shot, Larry Mize chipping in with an amazing bump and run, etc. It isn't when a guy bombed it 330, stuck a wedge and drained the short putt.
-
Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing getting your nuts off in the Lazy Boy.
-
You guys remind me of the suicidal poet waxing on about love. When exactly did it get too easy and why can't Tiger seem to figure it out? Golf that is.
After Elin broke that 8 iron over his head, breaking his back multiple times, and now age...
I'm surprised you asked Barney, you of all people should know golf and multiple women on the side don't mix ;D
-
Are you saying that modern equipment has made it more difficult for injured womanizers to compete? It never was a problem pre-Tiger.
-
Sorry, I didn't know we were discussing getting your nuts off in the Lazy Boy.
Ha! Is there already a thread for that?