News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2020, 04:15:17 PM »
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.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2020, 04:26:53 PM »
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.

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #27 on: September 22, 2020, 05:01:22 PM »
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....

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #28 on: September 22, 2020, 05:30:04 PM »
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.

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #29 on: September 22, 2020, 05:50:32 PM »
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

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #30 on: September 22, 2020, 06:38:46 PM »
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/

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
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 06:55:33 PM by Kalen Braley »

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #31 on: September 22, 2020, 10:17:19 PM »

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!

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2020, 09:51:25 AM »
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.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2020, 12:02:28 PM »
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.






Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2020, 12:08:11 PM »
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?
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2020, 04:08:39 PM »
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

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2020, 05:31:05 PM »
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.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, and Lifetime Student of the Game

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2020, 09:08:37 PM »
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.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2020, 11:46:06 PM »
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.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, and Lifetime Student of the Game

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2020, 03:22:48 AM »
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
New plays planned for 2022:

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2020, 06:07:11 AM »
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.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2020, 07:07:42 AM »



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.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2020, 07:20:46 AM »
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
New plays planned for 2022:

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2020, 07:50:24 AM »
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.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2020, 09:53:53 AM »
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.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2020, 07:31:32 AM »
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.
Maybe for 2022
~Eden Valley
~Hillview
~Pinehurst (NY)
~Kis 'N Greens
~Pine Meadows
~18 Mile Creek
~Greenwood
~Shawnee
~Leroy
~

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2020, 08:30:04 AM »
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 usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2020, 09:05:07 AM »
  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".
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2020, 09:57:04 AM »
  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%.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: An open letter to Bryson DeChambeau
« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2021, 03:34:31 PM »
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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back