The Effect of Long Rough AND Small Fairways

by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 17, 2008 11:41 PM EDT Comment 3 comments

The venerable Brett Avery (it's an inside joke) brings us his usual stat package after the PGA Championship for Golf World. Geoff Shackelford took a look at some of the numbers and gets into an interesting discussion of a comparison of significant data from the 2008 PGA and 1996 US Open.

The discussion is interesting on several different levels. First, it's the same golf course, set up in a similar Tom Meeks-era fashion - fairly tight fairways, deep rough, fast greens. Second, 1996 was a critical time in the explosion of club and ball technology. Titanium was first really beginning to take hold, but there was no such thing as a multi-piece ball like the Pro v1. Third, scoring was eerily similar.

From the data, Shackelford draws a skeptical conclusion about the relevance of grooves in the vast reduction in the number of fairways hit despite a 30 yard increase on the average off of the tee. With smaller fairways than 12 years ago, he wonders what impact that plays in both the statistical comparison of these two courses and the data comparison that the USGA and R&A compiled to make the case for groove regulation.

Any thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 3 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

and ?

I’ve never been a big fan of inter-generational stat comparisons. I know I know – 12 years isn’t a full generation, but we have gone through HUGE changes in the game since 1996 with Tiger Woods and physical training, club and ball changes, course changes….I’m sure you can make a very long list of significant changes over the last 12 years. Oakland Hills is not the same course it was 12 years ago. The USGA does not set up a course the same way the PGA does.

The stats listed between Harrington and Jones only tell a part of the story from the winner’s perspective. We have no clue would might have happened if that big storm hadn’t rolled through on Saturday. Scores on Sunday were significantly lower than Thursday and Friday.

The only thing comparative stats like this do are to prove that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If there wasn’t, Corey Pavin would never have his name on the US Open trophy, and Larry Mize would not have a green jacket.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Aug 18, 2008 10:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

I don’t think that the data lends us too much information. Like you said, there are a lot of factors that go into scoring, etc. There are certainly more physically fit guys today than 12 years ago, but not astoundingly so. The course changes were really only new bunkering and smaller fairways.

The biggest change is the ball/club combo, by far. That’s why I think this data is interesting. Guys hit the ball 30 yards further and hit fewer fairways. One conclusion to make is that guys care more about distance (on a very lengthy course) than putting the ball in the short stuff. But, with smaller fairways now than ever, could it just be that they have less real estate to hit?

BTW, this PGA was set up like a Tom Meeks-USGA style. For whatever reason, the PGA missed the mark on this one.

by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 18, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

definitely

This was not a typical PGA setup designed to give the PGA pros a shot at playing well. And what in the world were they thinking when they brushed the rough back towards the tees. (perhaps the grass was re-seeded after consulting with Karl Spakler) :-) Oakland Hills is a fair test of golf by itself without being tricked up.

The bunker changes for ’08 were significant – but they were basically put back in the positions they were designed to be in from the start – out where the longer drivers would have to either gamble or stay short.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Aug 18, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs