Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Bill Brightly on September 22, 2020, 12:35:04 AM
-
Thank you Bryson!
I really like you. You seem like a very nice guy. Congrats for figuring out how to best play professional golf. Enjoy the wealth that you have earned!
I HATE everything about how you play our golf courses. Since you are a smart guy, I trust you know why I hate the bomb and gauge approach that you employ on our courses, but I have to give you credit for figuring out that if you hit it far enough the architecture and the length of the rough does not matter. Gouge it out as best as you can and trust the math that says get it as close to the hole as possible from the tee and the numbers will work out. There is a ball and there is a hole. Hit the first shot as far as you can and then try to get it in the hole. Trust the math. Brilliant!
So thank you Bryson. Your approach proved that the USGA and the R & A failed miserably when they did not roll back the Pro V1. They did not listen to Jack Nicklaus. They did not listen to GCA.COM. Keep winning Bryson, maybe they will "listen" to you!
Bryson, I'm sorry that I used to root against you, hoping every 370 yard drive rested against a tree. The math was against me but you knew that... More times than not there will be a way to wedge it in the green. So keep on winning, Bryson. Your actions speak louder than our words.
Keep winning Bryson. Force the USGA to act. Create enough chaos so the USGA finally rolls back the ball and club leaders can stop altering our golf courses. Lord knows we have enough closely mown turf to maintain and we would like to stop the increase in required costs. Maybe YOU can prove what I know in my bones: the pro game should have ZERO influence on what constitutes good golf course architecture. You've trained your body and mind to ignore the architecture; that is how pros win money. The pro game should be played on PGA-owned golf courses, if not golf simulators.
Go win a grand slam. Maybe then the powers that be will finally roll back the ball and require a ball that spins more and can't be controlled like yours. Maybe then we can stop letting our rough grow high and looking for empty spaces to build new black tees.
Good on ya, Bryson!
-
Dear Bryson -
a short follow-up to Bill's excellent letter.
You are young and strong; Bill and I, along with most others here on gca.com, are old and increasingly feeble. And in our frail dotage we like to warm our bones by an old wood-stove and the dying embers of a game we once loved and mumble out words like architecture and strategy and fairway width -- our tired eyes and gaunt faces lit aglow with long-ago memories of the 88s and 84s and 92s we shot at so many of the Golden Age's Top 100 classic courses.
In other words: as with the aged in all times and all places, we long for the glories of the past and have respect for the power of traditions.
But, as the epitome of the next generation, you yourself have no such longing, nor cling to any such respect. And, let me say, I now realize that's just the way it should be!
Yes, along with Bill, I don't like it at all, not one bit -- but I do like you. So, in short: just keep doing what you're doing; and, in the words of a once-famous singer song writer who's now at least as old as Bill, 'don't trust anyone over 30'!
Best
Peter
-
My open letter to Bryson
Congratulations on winning the US Open and bring the excitement level and interest in the game of golf to new heights. I was glued to the tv for 4 straight days. Golf needs a superstar and you are mine.
When I was a kid I read DC Comics and loved Superman. My heros in the past were Sam Sneed, Gary Player, Arnie, Jack, Greg, and Tiger. i have a new superstar to follow and root for.
-
Four new GCA threads including an "open lettter" for a guy who's won twice on Tour in the last year? Yes he's hot, and yes he's playing a different game right now than we're accustomed to seeing. But can we wait and see if he can sustain it before we all panic and deem every course obsolete and/or anoint him golf's new superhero?
Brendon Todd and Webb Simpson must feel left out for not getting their own threads when they were hot and chalked up a couple wins in close proximity.
-
Mark,
The problem for me in the way that BDC is playing the game is that there seems to be no finesse, no imagination, no inner connection with the game itself. I don't care one whit that he can hit the ball out of sight or muscle the ball out of outrageous rough. When a lot of the ground between tee and green becomes obsolete the golf itself becomes excessively boring and tedious. I can't quite express it properly but I just feel that the game under those conditions has lost its soul and the grounds it is played over cannot exert influence on the outcome. As a displaced Scot it just makes me despondent!
Cheers Colin
-
I recognise the way DeChambeu is using science to help his cause in a way perhaps no one else has done, however is his basic strategy not just the same as Palmer, Nicklaus, Woods et al which is to smash it as far as possible and close to the hole and go from there ? What's the difference other than he looks more ungainly doing it ?
If I was writing an open letter to DeChambeu I'd congratulate him on his victory and commend him on his play but I'd ask that he be a good bit quicker doing it.
Niall
-
It is perhaps worth noting that DeChambeau did not lead the field in driving distance in any of the four rounds, and was 7th overall, less than a yard ahead of Paul Casey. He does lead the Tour in driving distance for the year, but it seems, at least to me, a bit simplistic to attribute his win at Winged Foot to distance alone.
It is also worth noting that the win at the Open gave him a trifecta shared only with Nicklaus and Woods; the US Am, the NCAA individual, and now this. In other words, he has been winning at the highest level available to him before this, and to think that he only won at Winged Foot because of what he has done to his body and his swing speed in the last year seems, again, simplistic.
Unlike others that have posted so far, I don't like DeChambeau at all. I DO, however, find him, as well as his approach, fascinating; not just the added bulk and distance, but the equipment as well. I suspect that he is the first Tour pro EVER to have more loft on his putter than on his driver, and the single length irons have almost gotten lost in the shuffle.
But I'm not sure that what he is doing translates to other golfers very well, or that he can physically sustain this for an extended period. I am perfectly willing to be wrong, but I have trouble imagining his approach to his body being the wave of the future. We already know that, all other things equal, stronger is better, and I think the number of Tour pros who do NOT work out diligently has been in decline for years now. But doing what DeChambeau does? I just can't see it.
-
I recognise the way DeChambeu is using science to help his cause in a way perhaps no one else has done, however is his basic strategy not just the same as Palmer, Nicklaus, Woods et al which is to smash it as far as possible and close to the hole and go from there ? What's the difference other than he looks more ungainly doing it ?
If I was writing an open letter to DeChambeu I'd congratulate him on his victory and commend him on his play but I'd ask that he be a good bit quicker doing it.
Niall
yes
-
I'm not a big Bryson fan either, but I have a ton of respect for risk-takers (probably because I am not one). The things he has done ... the single-length irons, the unorthodox swing, the rigid putting stroke, the massive weight gain ... had the potential to make him look like an idiot. But he stuck to his convictions, ignored the doubters, and it paid off. So, good for him. He absolutely earned that win.
-
I'm not a big Bryson fan either, but I have a ton of respect for risk-takers (probably because I am not one). The things he has done ... the single-length irons, the unorthodox swing, the rigid putting stroke, the massive weight gain ... had the potential to make him look like an idiot. But he stuck to his convictions, ignored the doubters, and it paid off. So, good for him. He absolutely earned that win.
+1
and as others have mentioned, he's just playing the game so many others already play.
he didn't invent it, but he only recently transformed himself into someone who could join the DJ, Bubba, JT,Rory,Tiger (formerly), Daly game.
I used to say Daly had the perfect approach 25 years ago.
Go all out, either contend with a chance to win..
or weekends off...
In a way, it's nice that the blue coats are noticing, but it's been apparent for many, many years how out of scale the game has gotten, but golf influencers, enthusiasts and policy makers all had a dirty little secret that they themselves were benefitting from the equipment as they aged(and didn't notice or didn't care), and buried their heads deeper into the sand every year as the data continued to creep up especially for elite players who were also evolving their bodies and techniques to further utilize the effects of modern tech.
-
I agree with most all of these sentiments, but once again the blame for the golf ball length is cast in these comments on the USGA/R&A. While these groups determine the equipment that most of us play with/by, that isn't true for the Tour pros. The PGA Tour has pretty clearly said that they think that the long-ball is a positive thing that attracts spectators and viewers to their sport. And they say that any reduction in the length of the ball flight would lead them to abandon the USGA as the arbiter of equipment.
So, let's get the blame in the right place. Maybe the USGA should have acted a long time ago--but at the present time, the blame is on the Tours.
-
Seems to me that the fairway bunkers are in the wrong place for Bryson and Wolff, et al....
-
Are many of you just rationalizing nostalgia?
When it comes to other areas such as politics, economics & other social issues, were the "good old days" all that good?
-
Seems to me that the fairway bunkers are in the wrong place for Bryson and Wolff, et al....
Fairway bunkers are obsolete now. If you put one at 350, they just lay back and still have 9-iron left, if they even care. (Inside 150 yards, most fairway bunkers are less of a hazard than US Open rough.) Are you going to build fairway bunkers from 270-370 on every hole? That'll look great!
A quick conversation on this topic with Brooks Koepka was what led me to build 19 bunkers at Memorial Park. We'll see how it works in November. But we weren't trying to protect par - we were aiming for excitement.
-
;D 8) :P
Ha< Mr Doak just reminded me that they need to take out that left fairway bunker on the 14th at Philadelphia CC
-
Boring golf...
-
Seems to me that the fairway bunkers are in the wrong place for Bryson and Wolff, et al....
Fairway bunkers are obsolete now. If you put one at 350, they just lay back and still have 9-iron left, if they even care. (Inside 150 yards, most fairway bunkers are less of a hazard than US Open rough.) Are you going to build fairway bunkers from 270-370 on every hole? That'll look great!
Does this bring the possibility of more centerline bunkers into the equation, or are they too gimmicky to be used more than sparingly? (Or would the same result happen with them as it would fairway bunkers?)
-
These points are well intentioned, but they just show the difficulty--and folly--of making the Pro game the focal point of golf. The Pros have to be less than .1% of golf, yet we spend so much time being concerned about them. I'm sick of it--and sick of them. Their game is wrecking ours.
-
FWIW, the bunkers I saw were well in play for these guys. Their presentation made them far preferable to the rough as well.
-
Seems to me that the fairway bunkers are in the wrong place for Bryson and Wolff, et al....
Fairway bunkers are obsolete now. If you put one at 350, they just lay back and still have 9-iron left, if they even care. (Inside 150 yards, most fairway bunkers are less of a hazard than US Open rough.) Are you going to build fairway bunkers from 270-370 on every hole? That'll look great!
Does this bring the possibility of more centerline bunkers into the equation, or are they too gimmicky to be used more than sparingly? (Or would the same result happen with them as it would fairway bunkers?)
In theory, you could add centerline bunkers that would be a problem for pros. The problem is how is the rest of the membership supposed to play the course when the pros leave? These bunkers are likely to be SECOND shot hazards for many women and older players. So again, maybe the answer is just play pro golf on the courses owned by the tour. Have at it, build stuff all over the place on those courses and leave ours alone!
-
While I feel there should be a rollback of the distance for other reasons such as cost of the game, I don't think it would change the strategy of the top players today. No matter what, you want to get as close to the green as possible.
As Bryson said in his news conference after the win, when fairways are as hard to hit as they were at Winged Foot, there is no reason to hold back to hit them. Zach Johnson was last in driving distance and he hit the same number of fairways that Bryson did. Why would you give up the 36 yards of difference between them just to possibly hit a few more fairways and have much longer approaches into the green? Besides, hitting fairways seems to be overrated. Rory hit it 2.5 yards further than Bryson on average and was third in fairways hit (averaged 2 more per round). He only lost by 12.
I don't think center line bunkers would be the answer, hell they aren't caring about the fairways so why would a bunker in the middle of one bother them, but bunkers right in front of very firm greens might make players want to hit more fairways as they couldn't run the ball up or stop it from the rough. But why destroy the historic nature of a course like Winged Foot for one week every 12 years?
-
When I think about the way pros play as compared to how I play (and consequently as most amateurs play), the biggest difference is the short game. I'm not saying I can fly the ball 300+, but I can hit it plenty far enough. But when I start to spray my driver and end up behind trees and have to pitch out to the fairway, the odds I'm getting up and down for par (or at worst bogey) from 150 yards is pretty slim. And that's where big numbers start to creep in. But when pros are on and confident, they seem to get up and down from everywhere. So a guy like Bryson doesn't have to worry much if he periodically parks a ball in the woods. As a result he pulls driver every time he can. He almost always recovers. In my case, on a tight, unforgiving hole, my best play is to hit 2-iron in the fairway and have 190 to the green, as opposed to bombing a driver, but then possibly needing to chip out of trouble.
-
When I think about the way pros play as compared to how I play (and consequently as most amateurs play), the biggest difference is the short game. I'm not saying I can fly the ball 300+, but I can hit it plenty far enough. But when I start to spray my driver and end up behind trees and have to pitch out to the fairway, the odds I'm getting up and down for par (or at worst bogey) from 150 yards is pretty slim. And that's where big numbers start to creep in. But when pros are on and confident, they seem to get up and down from everywhere. So a guy like Bryson doesn't have to worry much if he periodically parks a ball in the woods. As a result he pulls driver every time he can. He almost always recovers. In my case, on a tight, unforgiving hole, my best play is to hit 2-iron in the fairway and have 190 to the green, as opposed to bombing a driver, but then possibly needing to chip out of trouble.
All due respect, the numbers guys (like Broadie and Fawcett) can demonstrate that your assertion about what is your "best play" is incorrect. And their analysis is not limited to play at the highest levels of the game on the various tours. It applies to the chops of the world such as myself. . .
-
All due respect, the numbers guys (like Broadie and Fawcett) can demonstrate that your assertion about what is your "best play" is incorrect. And their analysis is not limited to play at the highest levels of the game on the various tours. It applies to the chops of the world such as myself. . .
Trust me ... you've never seen how emotionally crippled I become when I throw away a good round by hitting a crap drive, followed by a chip out, followed by three shots to get out of a greenside bunker, followed by a three-putt.
-
When I think about the way pros play as compared to how I play (and consequently as most amateurs play), the biggest difference is the short game. I'm not saying I can fly the ball 300+, but I can hit it plenty far enough. But when I start to spray my driver and end up behind trees and have to pitch out to the fairway, the odds I'm getting up and down for par (or at worst bogey) from 150 yards is pretty slim. And that's where big numbers start to creep in. But when pros are on and confident, they seem to get up and down from everywhere. So a guy like Bryson doesn't have to worry much if he periodically parks a ball in the woods. As a result he pulls driver every time he can. He almost always recovers. In my case, on a tight, unforgiving hole, my best play is to hit 2-iron in the fairway and have 190 to the green, as opposed to bombing a driver, but then possibly needing to chip out of trouble.
All due respect, the numbers guys (like Broadie and Fawcett) can demonstrate that your assertion about what is your "best play" is incorrect. And their analysis is not limited to play at the highest levels of the game on the various tours. It applies to the chops of the world such as myself. . .
Mark,
At the risk of picking the nit, I think it's important to note that Broadie is providing macro information about what separates better golfers from lesser golfers at every level of the game. What he is NOT doing is giving individual prescriptions for how you or Dan or I should play the game. So Dan's take on his game may be absolutely correct IF by playing that way his proximity of approach is better.
And Broadie has sort of revised his work to include the degree of the miss off the tee; he recognizes that there is VERY large difference between 5 feet into the rough, and 20 yards into the trees. If Dan is hitting the ball in the trees, then his proximity of approach is going to be awful, along with his score.
In other words, Broadie would fully support DeChambeau's approach because his misses didn't limit his ability to score. Closer is better at the macro level, and Broadie's research proves that. But closer is better doesn't include the trees.
-
This letter will matter just as much to Bryson DeChambeau as would an open letter to the guys simultaneously leading major league baseball in home runs and strikeouts. Or to Steph Curry for shooting 17 3-pointers every game.
-
This letter will matter just as much to Bryson DeChambeau as would an open letter to the guys simultaneously leading major league baseball in home runs and strikeouts. Or to Steph Curry for shooting 17 3-pointers every game.
You mean the guy who is 6th all time for % of 3 pointers made, and 1st all time in FT% made? That Steph Curry? ;D Of course you want him shooting 3s and getting fouled as often as possible.
-
When I think about the way pros play as compared to how I play (and consequently as most amateurs play), the biggest difference is the short game. I'm not saying I can fly the ball 300+, but I can hit it plenty far enough. But when I start to spray my driver and end up behind trees and have to pitch out to the fairway, the odds I'm getting up and down for par (or at worst bogey) from 150 yards is pretty slim. And that's where big numbers start to creep in. But when pros are on and confident, they seem to get up and down from everywhere. So a guy like Bryson doesn't have to worry much if he periodically parks a ball in the woods. As a result he pulls driver every time he can. He almost always recovers. In my case, on a tight, unforgiving hole, my best play is to hit 2-iron in the fairway and have 190 to the green, as opposed to bombing a driver, but then possibly needing to chip out of trouble.
All due respect, the numbers guys (like Broadie and Fawcett) can demonstrate that your assertion about what is your "best play" is incorrect. And their analysis is not limited to play at the highest levels of the game on the various tours. It applies to the chops of the world such as myself. . .
Mark,
At the risk of picking the nit, I think it's important to note that Broadie is providing macro information about what separates better golfers from lesser golfers at every level of the game. What he is NOT doing is giving individual prescriptions for how you or Dan or I should play the game. So Dan's take on his game may be absolutely correct IF by playing that way his proximity of approach is better.
And Broadie has sort of revised his work to include the degree of the miss off the tee; he recognizes that there is VERY large difference between 5 feet into the rough, and 20 yards into the trees. If Dan is hitting the ball in the trees, then his proximity of approach is going to be awful, along with his score.
In other words, Broadie would fully support DeChambeau's approach because his misses didn't limit his ability to score. Closer is better at the macro level, and Broadie's research proves that. But closer is better doesn't include the trees.
Wow! Somebody gets it!
It's very, very difficult to have a real conversation with certain "Broadites" (not meaning anyone on this thread). The macro versus micro thing is exactly how I try to explain it to people.
If you have pitching yips and frequently make double-bogey or worse when faced with half-shots from 40 to 60 yards (I've played with several people like this in my 30 years of golf), you are NOT better off being 50 yards than 105 yards, no matter what Broadie says.
It's hilarious to hear a Broadite try to convince you that you're wrong and that EVERYONE is better off hitting driver on this hole, or laying up to 50, rather than 100 yards.
The majority, even the vast majority, yes. But human beings often defy easy categorization -- especially golfers....
-
This letter will matter just as much to Bryson DeChambeau as would an open letter to the guys simultaneously leading major league baseball in home runs and strikeouts. Or to Steph Curry for shooting 17 3-pointers every game.
You mean the guy who is 6th all time for % of 3 pointers made, and 1st all time in FT% made? That Steph Curry? ;D Of course you want him shooting 3s and getting fouled as often as possible.
Of course he's great at what he does, but what he does is leading the way in changing the way the game is played so that it's much more boring. Basketball is now nothing more than 3-pointers, dunks, and free throws. Same way professional golf is nothing more than drivers, wedges, and putts. Hybrids off the tee are heading the way of 12-foot jumpers.
-
This letter will matter just as much to Bryson DeChambeau as would an open letter to the guys simultaneously leading major league baseball in home runs and strikeouts. Or to Steph Curry for shooting 17 3-pointers every game.
You mean the guy who is 6th all time for % of 3 pointers made, and 1st all time in FT% made? That Steph Curry? ;D Of course you want him shooting 3s and getting fouled as often as possible.
Of course he's great at what he does, but what he does is leading the way in changing the way the game is played so that it's much more boring. Basketball is now nothing more than 3-pointers, dunks, and free throws. Same way professional golf is nothing more than drivers, wedges, and putts. Hybrids off the tee are heading the way of 12-foot jumpers.
Yet the NBA is the most popular it has been since Magic-Bird-MJ. I believe that the creation of the three point line was counterproductive, but I respect the advantages that Curry and Harden have made from it. Plus the movement of the ball resembles European Hockey at its finest. So I believe that Driver and Ball Technology is out of control, but give credit to the players who have taken advantage of those facts.
Ira
-
I would disagree with the previous assertion that the NBA game is all layups and 3s now.
This site shows average shots per game from various distances over the last 10 years. (Shot attempts are the red bars)
https://write.corbpie.com/nba-shot-distance-data-fgm-fga-fgp-for-ranges-from-0-through-to-40-ft/ (https://write.corbpie.com/nba-shot-distance-data-fgm-fga-fgp-for-ranges-from-0-through-to-40-ft/)
While 0-4 feet has only had a slight uptick in the last 10 years, 5-9 feet, and 10-14 feet remain virtually unchanged. The one distance that has had a noticeable decline is 15-19 feet, with approx 8 fewer APG, but 20-24 footers also remain nearly the same. The biggest increase has been in the 24-29 foot range (8 APG to over 21 APG), as we already knew, but it has not come at the expense of every other shot type, just those in the 15-19 foot range.
Additionally teams are just plain taking more shots and they are almost all 3 pointers. Avg Shots Per Game in 2010-11 was about 82, vs approx 88 in 2019-2020.
in 2010-2011 Regular Season: 10% of shots were 3 point attempts, 35% were layups, and 55% were non-layup 2 point attempts
In 2019-2020 Regular Season: 25% of shots were 3 point attempts, 35% were layups, and 40% were non-layup 2 point attempts
-
Kalen, but that's just compared to 10 years ago. The 3-point revolution was well underway by then. Here is some additional data using a 20-year gap: https://shottracker.com/articles/the-3-point-revolution
That 20-24 foot range includes the 22-foot corner 3-pointer, the most efficient shot in the pro game. I'd love to see that 20-24 foot chart split into 2-pointers and 3-pointers.
And if 10-14 shot attempts have stayed the same on a per game basis, then they've decreased on a percentage of shot attempts basis with so many more shots being taken per game.
But in today's game, shots taken from 10-20 feet are a credit to the defense. Shots being taken from that range are because the defense has forced the offense into it, whereas it used to be that the offense wanted them. NBA teams today would be ecstatic to have their opponents take 15-footers the whole game.
In the 1984 NBA Finals, the only of the three 1980s Lakers-Celtics finals to go 7 games, the teams combined to take a TOTAL of 42 3-pointers in 7 games. Larry Bird took a total of 6 3-point shots in the series.
In the 2016 NBA Finals, the most recent finals series to go 7 games, the Cavaliers and Warriors combined to take...422(!) 3-pointers in 7 games. The Warriors took 43 in Game 5 - more in one game than the Lakers and Celtics combined to take in 7. Curry took 84 3-pointers himself, and Klay Thompson took 66 more.
Sorry for threadjack!
-
When I think about the way pros play as compared to how I play (and consequently as most amateurs play), the biggest difference is the short game. I'm not saying I can fly the ball 300+, but I can hit it plenty far enough. But when I start to spray my driver and end up behind trees and have to pitch out to the fairway, the odds I'm getting up and down for par (or at worst bogey) from 150 yards is pretty slim. And that's where big numbers start to creep in. But when pros are on and confident, they seem to get up and down from everywhere. So a guy like Bryson doesn't have to worry much if he periodically parks a ball in the woods. As a result he pulls driver every time he can. He almost always recovers. In my case, on a tight, unforgiving hole, my best play is to hit 2-iron in the fairway and have 190 to the green, as opposed to bombing a driver, but then possibly needing to chip out of trouble.
All due respect, the numbers guys (like Broadie and Fawcett) can demonstrate that your assertion about what is your "best play" is incorrect. And their analysis is not limited to play at the highest levels of the game on the various tours. It applies to the chops of the world such as myself. . .
Mark,
At the risk of picking the nit, I think it's important to note that Broadie is providing macro information about what separates better golfers from lesser golfers at every level of the game. What he is NOT doing is giving individual prescriptions for how you or Dan or I should play the game. So Dan's take on his game may be absolutely correct IF by playing that way his proximity of approach is better.
And Broadie has sort of revised his work to include the degree of the miss off the tee; he recognizes that there is VERY large difference between 5 feet into the rough, and 20 yards into the trees. If Dan is hitting the ball in the trees, then his proximity of approach is going to be awful, along with his score.
In other words, Broadie would fully support DeChambeau's approach because his misses didn't limit his ability to score. Closer is better at the macro level, and Broadie's research proves that. But closer is better doesn't include the trees.
Wow! Somebody gets it!
It's very, very difficult to have a real conversation with certain "Broadites" (not meaning anyone on this thread). The macro versus micro thing is exactly how I try to explain it to people.
If you have pitching yips and frequently make double-bogey or worse when faced with half-shots from 40 to 60 yards (I've played with several people like this in my 30 years of golf), you are NOT better off being 50 yards than 105 yards, no matter what Broadie says.
It's hilarious to hear a Broadite try to convince you that you're wrong and that EVERYONE is better off hitting driver on this hole, or laying up to 50, rather than 100 yards.
The majority, even the vast majority, yes. But human beings often defy easy categorization -- especially golfers....
I am 110% a "Broadite". But the number of people who misunderstand his work is staggering to me, really. One group, made up mostly of people who haven't read the book, refuses to believe that the old, "Drive for show, putt for dough" saying isn't really what's going on, either on Tour or on Saturday morning in the points game at your club. The other group is made up of people who have enough knowledge of Broadie's work to be dangerous (mostly to themselves!) and think that Broadie is telling EVERYBODY to hit it as far as they can off the tee. In reality, Broadie's work is descriptive, not proscriptive, for ANY individual.
I would expect Broadie to write something soon about DeChambeau's Open performance, and I'm guessing that his analysis will show that the percentage of fairways mattered a lot less than the degree by which he missed. Those fairways were narrow, and the percentage of misses was VERY high; Brendan Todd led the field in fairways hit, and he hit less than two out of three. DeChambeau's 41% was T26, so it's not like he was just wild off the tee relative to the field. I'll guess and say that his degree of miss was relatively low, and of course he is strong enough to play out of that rough to a degree that was probably unmatched in the field.
And if you want to dive even deeper, DeChambeau's strokes gained numbers for both approach and around the green were higher than his standing in driving average for the tournament. In other words, it is a VAST oversimplification to see last week as a guy bashing his way around Winged Foot; that just isn't what happened at all. I don't like the guy, and I don't enjoy watching him play golf, but he won that tournament for a lot of reasons besides how far he hits his driver, and reacting to his win as if distance was all that was going on would be silly.
-
Dear Bryson,
Congratulations on your US Open victory at Winged Foot.
You and your advisors have shown great thought in analysing the best way to attain success in modern day elite mens professional golf and put in tremendous effort and dedication in implementing the physical and other changes needed to achieve it.
Please now go-ahead and using the approach you adopted at Winged Foot win The Masters this November by at least 16 shots, even more if possible.
All the best
PS - if I may be so bold, your pace of play, on-course respect for others and talkativeness are areas that could be improved upon.
-
How many years before he develops a significant injury with his approach? Additional weight, maximum swing speed, etc. I would say the risk is high. But if you have the candle analogy, do you want it to burn twice as long or twice as bright?
-
How many years before he develops a significant injury with his approach?
You mean just like Tiger ?
I don't watch a lot of golf on TV but what was noticeable from the highlights I saw was how slimmer Tiger was and how he didn't lash into the ball as much as he used to. All part of the aging process I guess.
Niall
-
I am 110% a "Broadite". But the number of people who misunderstand his work is staggering to me, really. One group, made up mostly of people who haven't read the book, refuses to believe that the old, "Drive for show, putt for dough" saying isn't really what's going on, either on Tour or on Saturday morning in the points game at your club. The other group is made up of people who have enough knowledge of Broadie's work to be dangerous (mostly to themselves!) and think that Broadie is telling EVERYBODY to hit it as far as they can off the tee. In reality, Broadie's work is descriptive, not proscriptive, for ANY individual.
I would expect Broadie to write something soon about DeChambeau's Open performance, and I'm guessing that his analysis will show that the percentage of fairways mattered a lot less than the degree by which he missed. Those fairways were narrow, and the percentage of misses was VERY high; Brendan Todd led the field in fairways hit, and he hit less than two out of three. DeChambeau's 41% was T26, so it's not like he was just wild off the tee relative to the field. I'll guess and say that his degree of miss was relatively low, and of course he is strong enough to play out of that rough to a degree that was probably unmatched in the field.
And if you want to dive even deeper, DeChambeau's strokes gained numbers for both approach and around the green were higher than his standing in driving average for the tournament. In other words, it is a VAST oversimplification to see last week as a guy bashing his way around Winged Foot; that just isn't what happened at all. I don't like the guy, and I don't enjoy watching him play golf, but he won that tournament for a lot of reasons besides how far he hits his driver, and reacting to his win as if distance was all that was going on would be silly.
+1
I understand and apply the numbers, and if you have the yips on 50-yard shots, I'd never tell anyone to hit it to 50 yards instead of 105. I would try to help that person overcome the 50-yard-yips.
Also, Bryson gained enough strokes off the tee if you zero out his SG:OTT to still win the U.S. Open.
-
Also, Bryson gained enough strokes off the tee if you zero out his SG:OTT to still win the U.S. Open.
Huh? Aren't SG:OTT and strokes gained off the tee the same thing.
Are you saying that even without SG:OTT he gained enough elsewhere to win? Which makes sense.
BTW, I've been wondering what effect his 72* lie angle for irons has on his ability to hit out of rough. That's eight degrees steeper than an average wedge. A strong man, with Rebar shafts, 72* lie angle...that HAS to be an advantage.
-
Also, Bryson gained enough strokes off the tee if you zero out his SG:OTT to still win the U.S. Open.
Huh? Aren't SG:OTT and strokes gained off the tee the same thing.
Yeah, sorry. I meant to say this: Bryson gained enough strokes in all areas of the game that if you zeroed out his SG:OTT he'd have still won the U.S. Open. You got it with your "did you mean to say…" bit.
Sorry. I didn't proofread that one very well.
-
How many years before he develops a significant injury with his approach? Additional weight, maximum swing speed, etc. I would say the risk is high. But if you have the candle analogy, do you want it to burn twice as long or twice as bright?
If golfers are now athletes it stands to reason the risk of injury will increase. Golf is becoming like other sports. Peak younger and fade away younger.
Ciao
-
I find it unwatchable. I probably viewed the US Open for two hours total in six different viewing over four days, mostly just to see the course.
-
To my mind Bryson did not gouge the ball out of the rough - he merely played out of the rough. By that I mean that he is so strong now that playing out of the rough is not that difficult for him in that he can be pretty close on how far the ball will go and how much it will or will not spin. That to me is how he won. We should have seen this coming with big and strong guys like Brooks and DJ who have been doing it for the last few years. I say that the more manageable the rough is for the field the more players who have a shot at winning. One of the reasons that Tiger was so dominant was because of how strong he was and how he could deal with the rough but that is not the case anymore because of his fear of injury and is why his best shot at winning is at the Masters.
-
To my mind Bryson did not gouge the ball out of the rough - he merely played out of the rough. By that I mean that he is so strong now that playing out of the rough is not that difficult for him in that he can be pretty close on how far the ball will go and how much it will or will not spin. That to me is how he won. We should have seen this coming with big and strong guys like Brooks and DJ who have been doing it for the last few years. I say that the more manageable the rough is for the field the more players who have a shot at winning. One of the reasons that Tiger was so dominant was because of how strong he was and how he could deal with the rough but that is not the case anymore because of his fear of injury and is why his best shot at winning is at the Masters.
Uuuhhhmm, I think plenty of people saw this coming. This style of golf has been around for a while now. It just hasn't been very successfully at a US Open.
Ciao
-
When I think about the way pros play as compared to how I play (and consequently as most amateurs play), the biggest difference is the short game. I'm not saying I can fly the ball 300+, but I can hit it plenty far enough. But when I start to spray my driver and end up behind trees and have to pitch out to the fairway, the odds I'm getting up and down for par (or at worst bogey) from 150 yards is pretty slim. And that's where big numbers start to creep in. But when pros are on and confident, they seem to get up and down from everywhere. So a guy like Bryson doesn't have to worry much if he periodically parks a ball in the woods. As a result he pulls driver every time he can. He almost always recovers. In my case, on a tight, unforgiving hole, my best play is to hit 2-iron in the fairway and have 190 to the green, as opposed to bombing a driver, but then possibly needing to chip out of trouble.
All due respect, the numbers guys (like Broadie and Fawcett) can demonstrate that your assertion about what is your "best play" is incorrect. And their analysis is not limited to play at the highest levels of the game on the various tours. It applies to the chops of the world such as myself. . .
Mark,
At the risk of picking the nit, I think it's important to note that Broadie is providing macro information about what separates better golfers from lesser golfers at every level of the game. What he is NOT doing is giving individual prescriptions for how you or Dan or I should play the game. So Dan's take on his game may be absolutely correct IF by playing that way his proximity of approach is better.
And Broadie has sort of revised his work to include the degree of the miss off the tee; he recognizes that there is VERY large difference between 5 feet into the rough, and 20 yards into the trees. If Dan is hitting the ball in the trees, then his proximity of approach is going to be awful, along with his score.
In other words, Broadie would fully support DeChambeau's approach because his misses didn't limit his ability to score. Closer is better at the macro level, and Broadie's research proves that. But closer is better doesn't include the trees.
Wow! Somebody gets it!
It's very, very difficult to have a real conversation with certain "Broadites" (not meaning anyone on this thread). The macro versus micro thing is exactly how I try to explain it to people.
If you have pitching yips and frequently make double-bogey or worse when faced with half-shots from 40 to 60 yards (I've played with several people like this in my 30 years of golf), you are NOT better off being 50 yards than 105 yards, no matter what Broadie says.
It's hilarious to hear a Broadite try to convince you that you're wrong and that EVERYONE is better off hitting driver on this hole, or laying up to 50, rather than 100 yards.
The majority, even the vast majority, yes. But human beings often defy easy categorization -- especially golfers....
I get to do that every time I play btw. Not pleasant, although I do have my better days from time to time. I think it's important to take the concepts from these and apply them to your own game. If you know that you're helpless from 60 yards, don't play to that - that's common sense.
The thing that I think a lot of people get wrong though is the "I don't want to hit driver in the rough here, so I'm going to hit 2-iron in the fairway instead". Sure - if that's the trade off 100% of the time then you're probably right, but it isn't. You'll miss the fairway with 2-iron from time to time and now you're 190 out in the rough. You'll hit the fairway with driver sometimes too and now you're 140 out in the fairway. If you're hitting 100% of your fairways with your 2-iron and missing 100% with driver, then you really need to work on your driving.
Separate note - a lot of people here seem to be upset that Bryson was able to get it out of the rough and onto the green a lot at WF. 16 months ago a lot of people were complaining that BPB eliminates the ground game because so many of its greens are islands and have to be landed on, not run up on. You can't have a course that allows the ground game and prevents people from running the ball onto the green from the rough. So pick your poison.
-
Also, Bryson gained enough strokes off the tee if you zero out his SG:OTT to still win the U.S. Open.
Huh? Aren't SG:OTT and strokes gained off the tee the same thing.
Are you saying that even without SG:OTT he gained enough elsewhere to win? Which makes sense.
BTW, I've been wondering what effect his 72* lie angle for irons has on his ability to hit out of rough. That's eight degrees steeper than an average wedge. A strong man, with Rebar shafts, 72* lie angle...that HAS to be an advantage.
Ken,
I think the lie angle thing would be completely dependent on the specific shot. I've used irons that are 3* upright for years, and it helps if I'm on a sideslope running uphill from me, bad if I'm on a sideslope running downhill because it's hard to avoid the heel of the club hitting the ground first. And I think a lot of really good players play their wedges a degree or two flatter than their other irons anyway to that they can get the heel of the club off the ground a little for certain shots out of the rough or around the green. In short, I wouldn't think more upright wedges would be any sort of an advantage, and maybe more likely to be a problem out of that sort of rough.
For DeChambeau, I think his ability to deal with that sort of rough is mainly about his strength, and secondly about his swing plane; anybody that can hit a driver with 5.5* of loft as high as he does is on sort of a unique swing plane, to say the least.
-
I remember feeble old Babe and Harry and Mickey and Ben and Lady Heathcoat Amory and all those other weakling champions. Golf has NEVER been won by the weak. Let's dismiss that horsesh!t.
The USGA will not act. The R & A will not act. Karsten Solheim clipped their wings of those notions, back in the 1980s.
When Musselburgh and other delights were left to the dusty pages of history, there were no internet, no GCA, no Peleton, no string theory. When Winged Foot, Augusta National, and their ilk are left to the dusty terabytes of history, others will replace them. I predict that Cygnus X-1 will rank near the top in 2050. Geddy Lee predicted it, a while back.
-
I remember feeble old Babe and Harry and Mickey and Ben and Lady Heathcoat Amory and all those other weakling champions. Golf has NEVER been won by the weak. Let's dismiss that horsesh!t.
Ronald,You are so right. At the very least, when you looked at guys like Hogan and Palmer and Nicklaus, you guys who were incredibly strong thru the hands, forearms, shoulders, and thighs. No mistake about it.
A buddy and I went to a Champions Tour event last fall, and pretty much watched every group in the field from very close up. One of the things that we were struck by was that when you looked at those guys from behind (and weren't distracted by some of the bellies!) they were big, big men thru the shoulders. Even the little guys like Sluman, if you got past the height, were NOT little guys thru in terms of the key golf muscles. And we lose and perspective on their legs, of course, because of the long pants. Golf is no different than any other sport; all other things equal, if I'm stronger than you are, I win.
Before anybody tells me about Justin Thomas, I'll stipulate that there are ALWAYS outliers that have been touched by the gods. The exception proves the rule...
-
Golf is no different than any other sport; all other things equal, if I'm stronger than you are, I win.
Before anybody tells me about Justin Thomas, I'll stipulate that there are ALWAYS outliers that have been touched by the gods. The exception proves the rule...
AG, while strength is a component of top athletes it is speed that determines success more than strength. Speed is an innate characteristic that can be increased but only so far. Not nearly as much as strength and stamina with training. I'm sure you know the phrase repeated in many sports by coaches....."Speed Kills".
-
Golf is no different than any other sport; all other things equal, if I'm stronger than you are, I win.
Before anybody tells me about Justin Thomas, I'll stipulate that there are ALWAYS outliers that have been touched by the gods. The exception proves the rule...
AG, while strength is a component of top athletes it is speed that determines success more than strength. Speed is an innate characteristic that can be increased but only so far. Not nearly as much as strength and stamina with training. I'm sure you know the phrase repeated in many sports by coaches....."Speed Kills".
Agreed on all counts, 100%.
-
I give him a ton of credit for doing this.
And I admit, I'm intrigued to see how well he can do against the best in the world.
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/32072613/world-no-6-golfer-bryson-dechambeau-accepts-invitation-compete-professional-long-driver-championship
-
I give him a ton of credit for doing this.
And I admit, I'm intrigued to see how well he can do against the best in the world.
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/32072613/world-no-6-golfer-bryson-dechambeau-accepts-invitation-compete-professional-long-driver-championship (https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/32072613/world-no-6-golfer-bryson-dechambeau-accepts-invitation-compete-professional-long-driver-championship)
The article states that DeChambeau sought out Kyle Berkshire’s help in the off season. Berkshire is currently the number one ranked Long Driver competitor which potentially adds another storyline. Finally I wonder where BDC’s management team/sponsors line up as to whether they think he should compete from a public relations standpoint?
-
It should be interesting what kind of a driver he and Cobra come up with for the competition. Does Cobra sponsor any other long drive competitors? Hope it's not like the Homerun Derby and screws up his regular tour swing.
???
-
Hope it's not like the Homerun Derby and screws up his regular tour swing.
???
Pretty sure that ship sailed awhile ago....
EDIT:
Well, that didn't age too well.... ;) ;D
On a related note, I had coffee with a member yesterday, who took his 8 year old son son to an indoor facility in NYC on Sunday, the day Hurricane Henri hit the area. Bryson, another team member and his new caddie Brian Zeigler (a former Jim McLean assistant) were there working on tweaking Bryson's putter and putting stroke.
He said Bryson was quite friendly with them both, though mostly deeply focused on what he was doing.
They were impressed with Bryson taking time out to meet them talk with them and exchange pleasantries with them again when they left.They also said his team/Brian was particularly friendly as they were understandably a bit less focused than Bryson.
Whatever they did with his putting seemed to work ;)
-
8) I'm hoping he can hit 6 balls in the grid in 2:30, that's 2 minutes, 30 seconds, not hours & minutes
Looking through the PLDA Sport Manual, i note they have to use USGA Conforming Clubs and also have a competition ball rule... what a concept!
2.1.1 Golf Ball. Hitters are required to hit the golf ball provided by the PLDA, or the ball designated at the time of the sanctioned event, to require all Hitters to hit the same ball during the event. Hitter is required to ensure that PLDA issued golf balls are visible at all times.
and under 2.2.5 Local Qualifying - Stage 1 Format, there's a term "Brysony"
1-6 Attempts 343 Yards - Brysony (Qualified)
7-11 Attempts 341 Yards - Tony (Qualified)
336 Yards - Rory (NOT Qualified)
335 Yards - Justin (NOT Qualified)
wonder if anyone will be yelling Brooksy at him??
PLDA has come a long way since Art Sellinger was destroying it 326 yds!
-
2 years and change later...it seems Bryson may be re-thinking a few things:
DeChambeau is looking atypically svelte these days, and has apparently lost 20 pounds, which he confirmed in a recent appearance on the golf podcast Five Clubs with host Emma Carpenter (https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck9JFw0jzZQ/?hl=en).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/is-bryson-dechambeau-now-anti-bulking/ar-AA14nkLk?cvid=4b8c316bd6b14a1cb82643a36d7ef67d (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/is-bryson-dechambeau-now-anti-bulking/ar-AA14nkLk?cvid=4b8c316bd6b14a1cb82643a36d7ef67d)
-
2 years and change later...it seems Bryson may be re-thinking a few things:
DeChambeau is looking atypically svelte these days, and has apparently lost 20 pounds, which he confirmed in a recent appearance on the golf podcast Five Clubs with host Emma Carpenter (https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck9JFw0jzZQ/?hl=en).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/is-bryson-dechambeau-now-anti-bulking/ar-AA14nkLk?cvid=4b8c316bd6b14a1cb82643a36d7ef67d (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/is-bryson-dechambeau-now-anti-bulking/ar-AA14nkLk?cvid=4b8c316bd6b14a1cb82643a36d7ef67d)
Let’s see:
25 lb weight gain in a couple of months. Struggled with injuries (hamate bone and hip labrum, primarily), and self-reports suffering “huge mood swings”. Followed by losing 20 lbs in ONE MONTH.
Not suspicious at all.
-
Let’s see:
25 lb weight gain in a couple of months. Struggled with injuries (hamate bone and hip labrum, primarily), and self-reports suffering “huge mood swings”. Followed by losing 20 lbs in ONE MONTH.
Not suspicious at all.
I lost 25 pounds in roughly two months by learning how to eat properly. I carry 208-212 now. My gain was middle age mental laziness, so it was harder to pull off.
Bryson is a professional athlete, knows his body better than most athletes, put his pounds on purpose for his golf career, and won a US Open at Winged Foot. As the article states, he was consuming 3500 calories a day, so 20 pounds in a month seems reasonable, to me.
I don't think my wife would like Bryson at Thanksgiving dinner, but I do not think that Bryson "juiced".
I do think that Tiger "juiced".
-
Let’s see:
25 lb weight gain in a couple of months. Struggled with injuries (hamate bone and hip labrum, primarily), and self-reports suffering “huge mood swings”. Followed by losing 20 lbs in ONE MONTH.
Not suspicious at all.
I lost 25 pounds in roughly two months by learning how to eat properly. I carry 208-212 now. My gain was middle age mental laziness, so it was harder to pull off.
Bryson is a professional athlete, knows his body better than most athletes, put his pounds on purpose for his golf career, and won a US Open at Winged Foot. As the article states, he was consuming 3500 calories a day, so 20 pounds in a month seems reasonable, to me.
I don't think my wife would like Bryson at Thanksgiving dinner, but I do not think that Bryson "juiced".
I do think that Tiger "juiced".
The rapid weight loss is the least of it. The speed at which BCD gained muscle would be the envy of any NFL lineman, and the self-reported mood swings are a red flag.
I’ll leave your opinion on BCD as opposed to Woods alone.
-
I don't think my wife would like Bryson at Thanksgiving dinner, but I do not think that Bryson "juiced".
I do think that Tiger "juiced".
Tiger took years to change his body less than Bryson changed in six months, yet the latter is the one who didn't "juice"?
-
I don't think my wife would like Bryson at Thanksgiving dinner, but I do not think that Bryson "juiced".
I do think that Tiger "juiced".
Tiger took years to change his body less than Bryson changed in six months, yet the latter is the one who didn't "juice"?
Yes:
The indictment did not identify any clients, but prosecutors said they included golfers, professional baseball and football players and others.
https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448 (https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448)
-
The indictment did not identify any clients, but prosecutors said they included golfers, professional baseball and football players and others.
https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448 (https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448)
And yet the book by investigative journalists (https://amzn.to/3i6aBeH) turned up NOTHING.
-
The indictment did not identify any clients, but prosecutors said they included golfers, professional baseball and football players and others.
https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448 (https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448)
And yet the book by investigative journalists (https://amzn.to/3i6aBeH) turned up NOTHING.
People who get paid to write a book that sells lots of copies...
It's just my opinion. I did what Bryson did in 2019 -https://www.instagram.com/p/_unQuHmXWw/ (https://www.instagram.com/p/_unQuHmXWw/)
I also played college basketball and was exposed to many college football players when none of us knew what the repercussions of steroids were. Mike Ruth was the most famous and his story is well documented. I like Tiger, but yea, I think he juiced.
If I remember correctly, there were no rules against it in golf, so I do not think it tarnishes his accomplishments at all. He was just ahead of everyone, and the PGA caught up. Again, this is from memory, so I could be wrong on the this and have to go out now.
Happy Thanksgiving.
-
People who get paid to write a book that sells lots of copies...
I think they'd have sold a lot more books had they been able to find any evidence to support Tiger "juicing."
I also played college basketball and was exposed to many college football players when none of us knew what the repercussions of steroids were. Mike Ruth was the most famous and his story is well documented. I like Tiger, but yea, I think he juiced.
Based on only the fact that he used Dr. Galea for PRP when recovering from surgery? Guilt by association is enough for you, I guess, despite almost no other hard evidence. Okey dokey.
Have a good Thanksgiving for yourself, too.
-
Why else use Dr. Galea? There are thousands of doctors to choose from. And his reputation is world wide and proven. Use him and you’ll be suspected. To call that guilt by association is bending way over backwards. It’s a fair inference, though not dispositive .
-
Why else use Dr. Galea?
IIRC, because he was one of the experts/leaders in PRP at a time when it was pretty new.
To call that guilt by association is bending way over backwards.
Hardly. It's the literal definition, because again, there's virtually no other actual evidence that Tiger "juiced."
So it's almost purely guilt by association. His body didn't change rapidly. He worked his ass off in the gym (to what many have said was an unhealthy level). He wasn't anything like a "linebacker" build if you saw him in person.
Again, Armen Keteyian researched and wrote the book… and found nothing. He'd have really made a name for himself and the book had he found something with this. But he didn't.
-
Let’s see:
25 lb weight gain in a couple of months. Struggled with injuries (hamate bone and hip labrum, primarily), and self-reports suffering “huge mood swings”. Followed by losing 20 lbs in ONE MONTH.
Not suspicious at all.
I lost 25 pounds in roughly two months by learning how to eat properly. I carry 208-212 now. My gain was middle age mental laziness, so it was harder to pull off.
Bryson is a professional athlete, knows his body better than most athletes, put his pounds on purpose for his golf career, and won a US Open at Winged Foot. As the article states, he was consuming 3500 calories a day, so 20 pounds in a month seems reasonable, to me.
I don't think my wife would like Bryson at Thanksgiving dinner, but I do not think that Bryson "juiced".
I do think that Tiger "juiced".
Mike, it really is bad form to accuse someone of being "juiced" on a public forum, unless you have some kind of proof.
-
Its unfortunate Tigers name has been dragged into this.
He was in the spotlight almost non-stop during his transformation and was easily observed to be very gradual over several years.
Bryson on the other hand goes away for a few months and returns as an absolute beef-cake. As AG says, its beyond obvious.
-
Slanted article. https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448 (https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448)
The article mentions Tiger Woods, but no other golfers. Then it goes on to say golfers were included. What are we being led to believe?
-
Slanted article. https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448 (https://www.espn.com/espn/news/story?id=6743448)
The article mentions Tiger Woods, but no other golfers. Then it goes on to say golfers were included. What are we being led to believe?
At the time of the article below, Tiger Woods was at his peak in 2005. THERE WERE NO RULES AGAINT PED's in golf. Tiger was a world class athlete taking advantage of training techniques that were allowed. That is what top athletes always do, and Tiger broke no rules:
https://www.espn.com/golf/news/story?id=2239115 (https://www.espn.com/golf/news/story?id=2239115)
"No professional tour has specific language in its rules prohibiting performance-enhancing substances; nor does the USGA. "
The rest of this is Bryson hating who I believe also worked within the now very complicated rules - https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2018/2017-2018_Anti_Doping_Manual.PDF (https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2018/2017-2018_Anti_Doping_Manual.PDF)
-
Mike, the fact of the matter is: you have absolutely no actual evidence. You don't even have people saying "oh, yeah, I know Tiger did stuff."
And the article YOU cited says things like this:
After six months of research, Golf World has not turned up a documented case of steroid abuse on golf's major tours. Still, the rampant use of steroids in other sports and the insistence of medical experts that steroids can enhance performance lead some to believe steroids inevitably will encroach on pro golf, probably first among young amateurs and developmental pros.
Golf World has not turned up A documented case… experts believe it WILL encroach…
Also:
…says Dr. Bill Mallon, a former tour player who is now an orthopedic surgeon. Mallon is also an Olympic historian and was a consultant for the U.S. Golf Association on the inclusion of golf in the 2012 Olympics -- which, had it occurred, would have forced the sport to adopt an anti-doping policy that met IOC standards. "Tiger Woods is probably the best-conditioned male I see out there, and he doesn't look like he's on steroids. He just looks like he's in great shape.
And the article Pete cited "lists" Tiger Woods, and says that Galea had "clients" who were golfers. Well, Tiger was a client, but that doesn't mean he was shot up with steroids by Galea. I attended physical therapy for a shoulder injury a few years ago, and the FBI recently raided the offices and they were in big trouble for fraud. Doesn't mean they were fraudulent with me, or that I participated in the fraud (they were using lesser ranked people to perform procedures but billing medical insurance companies at the higher rate as if a higher level therapist did the work).
Its unfortunate Tigers name has been dragged into this.He was in the spotlight almost non-stop during his transformation and was easily observed to be very gradual over several years.Bryson on the other hand goes away for a few months and returns as an absolute beef-cake. As AG says, its beyond obvious.
+1
I think there are other reasons why one might think Tiger "juiced" while Bryson didn't.
-
“I think there are other reasons why one might think Tiger "juiced" while Bryson didn't.”
I’ll bite? What are the other reasons?
I don’t think either juiced. How could Bryson beat the system currently in place?
-
To say there is NO evidence that Tiger used is myopic. Galea and growth is evidence, but not convincing to some. In legal terms, it’s a jury question, not a directed verdict. Bamberger’s book presents the evidence and leaves the question open. That’s fair.
-
To say there is NO evidence that Tiger used is myopic. Galea and growth is evidence, but not convincing to some. In legal terms, it’s a jury question, not a directed verdict. Bamberger’s book presents the evidence and leaves the question open. That’s fair.
Growth? A skinny kid grew up to look like a taller, fitter version of both his parents. Woods is listed as 6-1/185.
The day I graduated from HS, I was 6-2 and weighed 145. I put on 30 lbs over the next 10 years while I was playing college tennis and playing competitive tennis beyond college, and by age 30 looked just like my father, minus the gut. This morning, at age 70, guess what? I am 6-1, 180.
Which is, of course, evidence of absolutely NOTHING. It doesn’t speak to whether or not I used steroids in my 20’s, nor how hard I did or didn’t work in the weight room.
If there was a directed verdict, it would be the judge throwing the case out. There isn’t any evidence. Doesn’t mean Woods didn’t juice, but to call his “growth” over a decade or so evidence is pretty cynical stuff.
And, btw, what do you do with Bill Mallon’s comment?
-
2 years and change later...it seems Bryson may be re-thinking a few things:
DeChambeau is looking atypically svelte these days, and has apparently lost 20 pounds, which he confirmed in a recent appearance on the golf podcast Five Clubs with host Emma Carpenter (https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck9JFw0jzZQ/?hl=en).
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/is-bryson-dechambeau-now-anti-bulking/ar-AA14nkLk?cvid=4b8c316bd6b14a1cb82643a36d7ef67d (https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/is-bryson-dechambeau-now-anti-bulking/ar-AA14nkLk?cvid=4b8c316bd6b14a1cb82643a36d7ef67d)
Let’s see:
25 lb weight gain in a couple of months. Struggled with injuries (hamate bone and hip labrum, primarily), and self-reports suffering “huge mood swings”. Followed by losing 20 lbs in ONE MONTH.
Not suspicious at all.
Apparently it took Robert De Niro 4 months to put on 70 lbs (145 lbs to 215 lbs) for the role of Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull. He also had health issues with the weight gain. All of which doesn't prove anything either in terms of BDC's weight gain in the same way your own weight gain proves nothing about Tiger's. So why exactly are you inferring that BDC has been taking banned substances ?
Niall
-
Apparently it took Robert De Niro 4 months to put on 70 lbs (145 lbs to 215 lbs) for the role of Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull. He also had health issues with the weight gain. All of which doesn't prove anything either in terms of BDC's weight gain in the same way your own weight gain proves nothing about Tiger's. So why exactly are you inferring that BDC has been taking banned substances ?
Niall
The Army, Navy, and Air Force football seniors have to do this every Spring to graduate:
Gaston weighed 295 pounds to start the season while Tamburello was 290 pounds to start the year. The two players had to get down to 226 pounds and 211 pounds, respectively, to reach the weight on the chart. Neither was able to do that, but both were able to pass by dropping 50-plus pounds from their weights at the beginning of the season and by getting to 12 percent body fat, each in under three months.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/two-navy-offensive-linemen-lose-50-plus-pounds-just-to-graduate/ (https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/two-navy-offensive-linemen-lose-50-plus-pounds-just-to-graduate/)
If they test for even Marijuana, they are out, so I am thinking Bryson can easily do this with his obvious intelligence.
Once again, I don't believe Tiger or Bryson broke any rules. Bryson just bugs people :)
-
;) Well obviously BDC was juicing burgers into milkshakes and can reverse that... an injured a wrist bone and hip cartilage, no kidding, obviously under the influence trying for swing speeds of 200+ mph...
Wishing best to all seeking improvement, mentally and physically, golfing/non-golfing, every day's a blessing, make teh most of it!
Cheers at 70 yo, 6'-2", 235 lb
-
To say there is NO evidence that Tiger used is myopic. Galea and growth is evidence, but not convincing to some.
a) Galea, circumstantial.
b) "growth", AG addressed: Tiger didn't "grow" abnormally or in a way that would indicate steroid use.
Once again, I don't believe Tiger or Bryson broke any rules. Bryson just bugs people :)
That's a cop-out because as you've noted, steroids weren't banned by the PGA Tour in 2005.
-
Many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Most, I’d say. I once prosecuted a case in which the defendant argued that, because there were no eye witnesses, there was reasonable doubt. Guilty.
-
Many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Most, I’d say. I once prosecuted a case in which the defendant argued that, because there were no eye witnesses, there was reasonable doubt. Guilty.
Cool. I'm not willing to convict on guilt by association. I'll say it again: there remains no hard evidence to support Tiger having been "juiced."
Your point about "growth" carries no weight at all (no pun intended).
-
I'll say it again: there remains no hard evidence to support Tiger having been "juiced."
Your point about "growth" carries no weight at all (no pun intended).
Erik,
This is a "Discussion Group" not a "Court of Law". I am not part of Nike's PR team either.
I personally believe that Dr Galea was a healer for many world class athletes, in the short term, when their careers were active. The longer term implications of his healing methods are not known by me. Which method/substance was on which list at one time, is not the focus of my interest.
Bryson seems to be doing what he is doing much more on his own. That is interesting to me. I am currently taking a topical prescription cream with a Steroid for an occasional rash mainly on my arms. Honestly not sure how/why it happened. It is post-Covid infection. I went through a variety of nutraceutical treatments, but none really worked. I don't like taking Tylenol, so taking a Steroid cream is significant, to me. If I get banned from a GCA Dixie Cup, what can I do?? ;)
Bryon's methodologies are interesting - to me. I just turned 60, and I had my best round ever at 58. I am a believer!!
-
This is a "Discussion Group" not a "Court of Law". I am not part of Nike's PR team either.
Nor am I. I'm simply discussing your "belief" that you don't think Bryson "juiced" while you think Tiger did.
-
This is a "Discussion Group" not a "Court of Law". I am not part of Nike's PR team either.
Nor am I. I'm simply discussing your "belief" that you don't think Bryson "juiced" while you think Tiger did.
What are you implying?
“I think there are other reasons why one might think Tiger "juiced" while Bryson didn't.”[/size][/color]
-
What are you implying?
I wasn't talking to you, was I, Troll Rob? By rule, I mostly ignore you (while the inverse appears to be true on your end).
List all of the differences between Tiger and Bryson and maybe the answer is on that list. There are many.
-
I asked a simple question about your statement. I have a pretty good idea what you meant but was hoping you would clarify. No worries.
-
I have a pretty good idea what you meant but was hoping you would clarify.
I doubt it.
Also: https://twitter.com/golfdigest/status/1595824566613331971 (https://twitter.com/golfdigest/status/1595824566613331971)