Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The ghost of Allan Robertson: A few thoughts on the distance debate

Published

on

It’s that time of year in certain parts of the world. Ghosts, ghouls, and ghoblins roam the lawns. Departed ancestors return to these fields to visit with living descendants. It’s also a time (is it ever not?) when curmudgeons and ancients decry the advances of technology in the world of golf equipment.

Pretty big narrative leap, I’ll admit, but I have your attention, aye? An October 16th tweet from noted teacher Jim McClean suggested that it would be fun to see PGA Tour players tee it up for one week with wooden heads and a balata ball.

Others beg for a rolling-back of technological potency, raising property acreage as a critical determinant. Fact is, 90 percent of golfers have no experience with hitting the ball too far, nor with outgrowing a golf course. And yet, the cries persist.

Recently, I was awakened from a satisfying slumber by the ghost of Allan Robertson. The long-dead Scot was in a lather, equal parts pissed at Old Tom Morris for playing a guttie, and at three social-media channels, all of which had put him on temporary suspension for engaging violently with unsupportive followers. He also mentioned the inaccuracies of his Wikipedia page, which credits him for a 100-year old business, despite having only spent the better part of 44 years on this terrestrial sphere. Who knew that the afterlife offered such drip internet access?

I’m not certain if Old Tom cared (or was even alive) that his beloved gutta percha ball was replaced by the Haskell. I believe him to have been preoccupied with the warming of the North Sea (where he took his morning constitutional swims) and the impending arrival of metal shafts and laminated-wood heads. Should that also long-dead Scot pay me a nighttime visit, I’ll be certain to ask him. I do know that Ben Hogan gave no sheets about technology’s advances; he was in the business of making clubs by then, and took advantage of those advances. Sam Snead was still kicking the tops of doors, and Byron Nelson was pondering the technological onslaught of farriers, in the shoeing of horses on his ranch.

And how about the women? Well, the ladies of golfing greatness have better things to do than piss and moan about technology. They concern themselves with what really matters in golf and in life. Sorry, fellas, it’s an us-problem. Records are broken thanks to all means of advancement. Want to have some fun? Watch this video or this video or this video. If you need much more, have a reassessment of what matters.

Solutions

Either forget the classic courses or hide the holes. Classic golf courses cannot stand up in length alone to today’s professional golfers. Bringing in the rough takes driver out of their hands, and isn’t a course supposed to provide a viable challenge to every club in the bag? Instead, identify four nearly-impossible locations on every putting surface, and cut the hole in one of them, each day. Let the fellows take swings at every par-4 green with driver, at every par-five green with driver and plus-one. Two things will happen: the frustration from waiting waiting waiting will eliminate the mentally-weak contestants, and the nigh-impossible putting will eliminate even more of them. What will happen with scoring? I don’t know. Neither did Old Tom Morris, Robert Tyre Jones, Jr., Lady Heathcoat Amory, or Mildred Didrickson, when new technology arrived on the scene. They shrugged their shoulders, stayed away from Twitter and the Tok, and went about their business.

Add the tournament courses. Build courses that can reach 8,500 yards in length, and hold events on those layouts. Two examples from other sports: the NFL made extra points longer. Has it impacted game results? Maybe. The NBA kept the rim at ten feet. Has it impacted game results? Maybe. We don’t play MLB or MLS on ancient diamonds and pitches. We play their matches and games on technologically-advanced surfaces. Build/Retrofit a series of nondescript courses as tournament venues. Take the par-5 holes to 700 yards, then advance the par-4 fairways to 550 yards. Drive and pitch holes check-in at 400 yards, at least until Bryson DeChambeau and Kyle Berkshire figure a few more things out.

Note to the young guys and the old guys from this 55-year old guy: live your era, then let it go. I know things.

Your Reaction?
  • 21
  • LEGIT8
  • WOW1
  • LOL0
  • IDHT3
  • FLOP2
  • OB0
  • SHANK40

Ronald Montesano writes for GolfWRX.com from western New York. He dabbles in coaching golf and teaching Spanish, in addition to scribbling columns on all aspects of golf, from apparel to architecture, from equipment to travel. Follow Ronald on Twitter at @buffalogolfer.

20 Comments

20 Comments

  1. Deacon Blues

    Oct 21, 2021 at 8:28 pm

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the pros continuing to play the classic courses. Just change the pars as necessary to reflect what the pros are likely to average. The USGA has been doing this for years. Some courses we know as par 72 should be par 68 (or even fewer) for the pros. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Nov 20, 2021 at 8:51 am

      I agree with you, Deacon. The problem is, we are not members of those clubs (assumption on my part.) The members don’t want to do that, don’t want their courses shamed by low scores, so the trickery problem rears its head.

  2. Walter

    Oct 21, 2021 at 1:05 pm

    Did Allan Robertson knew about Broom Force.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Nov 20, 2021 at 8:55 am

      I cannot speak for Sir Allan, but I suspect that he might have suspected something about its properties. He did not post about it on Twitter, so we’ll never know for certain.

  3. Mr. Smash

    Oct 21, 2021 at 12:12 pm

    Race car drivers never complain that the car is going too fast. If you are looking for Hogan and Snead and Nelson (or Rory, DJ and Bryson) to tell you that the ball is going too far you won’t ever find it. But if you ask the guys responsible for being able to keep the car planted on the track (game on the course) you my find they wouldn’t mind a rollback or at minimum a halt in the distance race.

    You can’t stop a guy from getting bigger or stronger and faster. But you can stop his ability to use the equipment to capitalize on that strength. (You can’t swing it 140mph with a broom stick stiff shaft or a driver face made to handle it.)

    Jack was long with persimmon and steel shafts. Bryson will be long with persimmon and steel shafts. It isn’t about limiting stronger players from using distance or balancing their advantage, it, for me, is about keeping the game sustainable and right sized to the playing grounds.

    • Ronald Montesano

      Nov 20, 2021 at 8:57 am

      I do understand your point. I have a question: How many of us normal amateurs are capable of making the game unsustainable? I suspect the answer is zero. It is the minute percentage of golf professionals who are able to unlock the magic of technology to this degree. That’s why I say, give them their own courses.

  4. Karsten's Ghost

    Oct 20, 2021 at 5:16 pm

    Why is this all so bloody difficult?

    Golf ball max compression = 60.

    That’s it. That’s all you gotta do.

  5. Chuck

    Oct 20, 2021 at 12:31 pm

    I might have some more criticisms if I knew exactly what Ron was proposing; I honestly don’t.

    As for Ben Hogan being unconcerned with equipment technology, let’s all face the fact that during his time as an active tour player and then as an equipment manufacturer, there was NEVER any development like the solid core urethane ball. Ben, like Arnold Palmer (another equipment company owner, and a proponent of a ball rollback) lived a life in golf where steel shafts, balata balls and modest-sized driver heads (largely wooden) were the standard.

    I have ZERO doubt but that if Ben Hogan were alive today and Chairman of the Board of his golf club manufacturing company, he’d be in favor of a ball rollback. Like Nicklaus, Player, Trevino, Woods, Els and too many others to list fully, all are.

    It is a simple proposition; do we want to preserve the ability to host golf’s greatest championships on golf’s historic venues, or do we want to throw that away in the interest of not offending a small number of golf ball manufacturers and their contracted Tour stars?

    As Geoff Shackelford has very rightly observed; in no other sport are the venues upon which the game is played, as critical or as fragile as in golf.

    I do not have adequate words, for how much more I care about The Old Course than Titleist’s urethane ball patents.

  6. Greg McNeill

    Oct 20, 2021 at 10:31 am

    Another factor: decrease fairway roll. I’ve played in 2 pro-ams, both at Bay Hill, a course I’ve played many times in casual rounds so I know how far driver tends to go there. At both pro-ams, the fairways were extremely firm with grass mowed tight. On almost every drive where I managed to keep it in the fairway, my tee shot ended up 25-30 yards past my normal distance. It wasn’t because I was striking the ball exceptionally well- it was because the ball rolled out forever. I realize that today’s players tend to carry their drivers further and rely less on roll but it does make a difference.

  7. Majduffer

    Oct 20, 2021 at 10:27 am

    The fools in the USGA ivory tower have not a clue about the advancement of physical kinetics. Bryson and others hit the baller further not because of equipment, but because they have engineered their physical capabilities to peak performance due to science and dedication to practice. No matter what you do to courses or equipment, if I have a 140mph swing speed versus your 125, then I will always be hitting a lot shorter distance into the green than you. My proximity to the flag will usually be a lot closer to the flag than yours. If you narrow fairways or increase the rough, then I’ll hit my fairway wood and still hit the fairway. I’ll be hitting 9i in versus your 7i and be closer. I’ll dominate the field on long par3s as I’ll be hitting short irons versus you hitting long irons. Long hitters will dominate the game just as the fastest sprinters dominate track. Making courses with trick greens etc. will only make a mockery of the game. Jack and Tiger dominated the game because of their physical capabilities and training. Now the fools on the USGA hill want to deny this to today’s golf athletes.

    • Barry

      Oct 20, 2021 at 10:50 am

      I totally agree with you – golf is a sport and physical skill should be rewarded! But you are making the case for regulation, not against it. As you say it so well, distance is relative…no matter what the conditions, someone who is more athletic and swings it faster is going to hit it past someone slower. If that’s the case, why does it matter if you dial back the equipment to save water and land? Those are not free, and they add expense to everything in golf (whether you know it or not). Pace of play is another issue that longer courses don’t help.

      Every sane sport in the world makes adjustments to the rules from time to time to keep competitive balance in check. Only in golf, with an army of clueless amateurs who think “they are playing the same game as the pros” do we let the equipment manufacturers dictate everything.

      Golf is an entertainment product. Leave the ams alone, bifurcate to challenge the male pros, and call it a day.

    • Donald Hume

      Oct 20, 2021 at 1:26 pm

      You just have to look at the scoring last weekend to see the problem. Valderrama tight, tough layout with trees/rough/ doglegs and bunkers. Winning score -6.

      Summit Club, desert drive and pitch course, some difficulty in desert lies but if the pros can get a swing it’s not an issue. Pointless having bunkers at 300 yards as these guys fly them with 3 wood and sometimes even less.

      Unfortunately TV and the masses only want to see birdies and eagles, rather than tough golf courses played in par. TV dictates to the PGA and they set up the courses appropriately. Longer hitting players should have an advantage but only if the can find tough fairways

  8. Al Cleverdon

    Oct 20, 2021 at 9:27 am

    Simple solutions. Replace all bunkers with pot bunkers…Grow the rough, not necessarily to U.S. Open standards but I’m sure they can figure out a height that is fair but still penalizing…Narrow the fairways but if the first two suggestions are implemented they shouldn’t have to be narrowed a lot…Gradually, over the years, make the greens as fast and undulating as possible without being unfair… You’re welcome!…and thanks for the chuckles… Good article.

    • No

      Oct 20, 2021 at 9:35 am

      That would render a golf course nearly unplayable for the the other 51 weeks of year. Why punish amateur golfers for a tournament played at a course one week a year?

    • Chuck

      Oct 20, 2021 at 12:19 pm

      That is the “simple” solution?!?

      • J

        Oct 20, 2021 at 4:56 pm

        Not the pot bunkers, but letting grass grow is pretty simple 😉

  9. Peter

    Oct 20, 2021 at 8:40 am

    This article is such a mess it’s hard to know where to begin…

    * the dudes bitching the loudest about equipment regulation aren’t young, they are old guys who think that hitting it further at 70 than 25 is a constitutional right.. 460 cc +ProV1 are like viagra, you’ll pry it from their cold dead hands. I mean god forbid you might have to hit the gym and actually swing faster to hit it further.

    * why only 8500 yards, make not make it a nice round 10,000? water and land are just limitless resources we can piss away!

    * screw the old course, it’s just the home of golf…far more important Acushnet makes its 4Q numbers!

    * baseball DOES have stadiums over 100 years old (Wrigley and Fenway) and they are some of the most loved places in all of sports. If the idiots that run golf ran the MLB, they would have been torn down 30 years ago so Easton could sell more carbon tungsten chromoly bats. With the the blue blazers in barge you’d have guys hitting 900 foot bombs and pitchers in full body armor.

    Ronald, maybe just two scotches before posting next time.

  10. Ronnie Mundt

    Oct 19, 2021 at 4:15 pm

    Sounds to me like 55 year old doesn’t want to give up his crutches, the 460cc driver and rock hard ball that doesn’t spin.

    • Jbone

      Oct 19, 2021 at 9:16 pm

      Sounds to me like people can’t let go of the past.

      Let’s watch the pros play their own clubs to the best of their ability.

      • Matt Aamold

        Oct 19, 2021 at 10:28 pm

        Curious, how would rolling back equipment remove their ability?

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s 2024 Zurich Classic of New Orleans betting preview

Published

on

The PGA TOUR heads to New Orleans to play the 2023 Zurich Classic of New Orleans. In a welcome change from the usual stroke play, the Zurich Classic is a team event. On Thursday and Saturday, the teams play best ball, and on Friday and Sunday the teams play alternate shot.

TPC Louisiana is a par 72 that measures 7,425 yards. The course features some short par 4s and plenty of water and bunkers, which makes for a lot of exciting risk/reward scenarios for competitors. Pete Dye designed the course in 2004 specifically for the Zurich Classic, although the event didn’t make its debut until 2007 because of Hurricane Katrina.

Coming off of the Masters and a signature event in consecutive weeks, the field this week is a step down, and understandably so. Many of the world’s top players will be using this time to rest after a busy stretch.

However, there are some interesting teams this season with some stars making surprise appearances in the team event. Some notable teams include Patrick Cantlay and Xander Schauffele, Rory McIlroy and Shane Lowry, Collin Morikawa and Kurt Kitayama, Will Zalatoris and Sahith Theegala as well as a few Canadian teams, Nick Taylor and Adam Hadwin and Taylor Pendrith and Corey Conners.

Past Winners at TPC Louisiana

  • 2023: Riley/Hardy (-30)
  • 2022: Cantlay/Schauffele (-29)
  • 2021: Leishman/Smith (-20)
  • 2019: Palmer/Rahm (-26)
  • 2018: Horschel/Piercy (-22)
  • 2017: Blixt/Smith (-27)

2024 Zurich Classic of New Orleans Picks

Tom Hoge/Maverick McNealy +2500 (DraftKings)

Tom Hoge is coming off of a solid T18 finish at the RBC Heritage and finished T13 at last year’s Zurich Classic alongside Harris English.

This season, Hoge is having one of his best years on Tour in terms of Strokes Gained: Approach. In his last 24 rounds, the only player to top him on the category is Scottie Scheffler. Hoge has been solid on Pete Dye designs, ranking 28th in the field over his past 36 rounds.

McNealy is also having a solid season. He’s finished T6 at the Waste Management Phoenix Open and T9 at the PLAYERS Championship. He recently started working with world renowned swing coach, Butch Harmon, and its seemingly paid dividends in 2024.

Keith Mitchell/Joel Dahmen +4000 (DraftKings)

Keith Mitchell is having a fantastic season, finishing in the top-20 of five of his past seven starts on Tour. Most recently, Mitchell finished T14 at the Valero Texas Open and gained a whopping 6.0 strokes off the tee. He finished 6th at last year’s Zurich Classic.

Joel Dahmen is having a resurgent year and has been dialed in with his irons. He also has a T11 finish at the PLAYERS Championship at TPC Sawgrass which is another Pete Dye track. With Mitchell’s length and Dahmen’s ability to put it close with his short irons, the Mitchell/Dahmen combination will be dangerous this week.

Taylor Moore/Matt NeSmith +6500 (DraftKings)

Taylor Moore has quickly developed into one of the more consistent players on Tour. He’s finished in the top-20 in three of his past four starts, including a very impressive showing at The Masters, finishing T20. He’s also finished T4 at this event in consecutive seasons alongside Matt NeSmith.

NeSmith isn’t having a great 2024, but has seemed to elevate his game in this format. He finished T26 at Pete Dye’s TPC Sawgrass, which gives the 30-year-old something to build off of. NeSmith is also a great putter on Bermudagrass, which could help elevate Moore’s ball striking prowess.

Your Reaction?
  • 6
  • LEGIT2
  • WOW1
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP2
  • OB1
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s 2024 LIV Adelaide betting preview: Cam Smith ready for big week down under

Published

on

After having four of the top twelve players on the leaderboard at The Masters, LIV Golf is set for their fifth event of the season: LIV Adelaide. 

For both LIV fans and golf fans in Australia, LIV Adelaide is one of the most anticipated events of the year. With 35,000 people expected to attend each day of the tournament, the Grange Golf Club will be crawling with fans who are passionate about the sport of golf. The 12th hole, better known as “the watering hole”, is sure to have the rowdiest of the fans cheering after a long day of drinking some Leishman Lager.  

The Grange Golf Club is a par-72 that measures 6,946 yards. The course features minimal resistance, as golfers went extremely low last season. In 2023, Talor Gooch shot consecutive rounds of 62 on Thursday and Friday, giving himself a gigantic cushion heading into championship Sunday. Things got tight for a while, but in the end, the Oklahoma State product was able to hold off The Crushers’ Anirban Lahiri for a three-shot victory. 

The Four Aces won the team competition with the Range Goats finishing second. 

*All Images Courtesy of LIV Golf*

Past Winners at LIV Adelaide

  • 2023: Talor Gooch (-19)

Stat Leaders Through LIV Miami

Green in Regulation

  1. Richard Bland
  2. Jon Rahm
  3. Paul Casey

Fairways Hit

  1. Abraham Ancer
  2. Graeme McDowell
  3. Henrik Stenson

Driving Distance

  1. Bryson DeChambeau
  2. Joaquin Niemann
  3. Dean Burmester

Putting

  1. Cameron Smith
  2. Louis Oosthuizen
  3. Matt Jones

2024 LIV Adelaide Picks

Cameron Smith +1400 (DraftKings)

When I pulled up the odds for LIV Adelaide, I was more than a little surprised to see multiple golfers listed ahead of Cameron Smith on the betting board. A few starts ago, Cam finished runner-up at LIV Hong Kong, which is a golf course that absolutely suits his eye. Augusta National in another course that Smith could roll out of bed and finish in the top-ten at, and he did so two weeks ago at The Masters, finishing T6.

At Augusta, he gained strokes on the field on approach, off the tee (slightly), and of course, around the green and putting. Smith able to get in the mix at a major championship despite coming into the week feeling under the weather tells me that his game is once again rounding into form.

The Grange Golf Club is another course that undoubtedly suits the Australian. Smith is obviously incredibly comfortable playing in front of the Aussie faithful and has won three Australian PGA Championship’s. The course is very short and will allow Smith to play conservative off the tee, mitigating his most glaring weakness. With birdies available all over the golf course, there’s a chance the event turns into a putting contest, and there’s no one on the planet I’d rather have in one of those than Cam Smith.

Louis Oosthuizen +2200 (DraftKings)

Louis Oosthuizen has simply been one of the best players on LIV in the 2024 seas0n. The South African has finished in the top-10 on the LIV leaderboard in three of his five starts, with his best coming in Jeddah, where he finished T2. Perhaps more impressively, Oosthuizen finished T7 at LIV Miami, which took place at Doral’s “Blue Monster”, an absolutely massive golf course. Given that Louis is on the shorter side in terms of distance off the tee, his ability to play well in Miami shows how dialed he is with the irons this season.

In addition to the LIV finishes, Oosthuizen won back-to-back starts on the DP World Tour in December at the Alfred Dunhill Championship and the Mauritus Open. He also finished runner-up at the end of February in the International Series Oman. The 41-year-old has been one of the most consistent performers of 2024, regardless of tour.

For the season, Louis ranks 4th on LIV in birdies made, T9 in fairways hit and first in putting. He ranks 32nd in driving distance, but that won’t be an issue at this short course. Last season, he finished T11 at the event, but was in decent position going into the final round but fell back after shooting 70 while the rest of the field went low. This season, Oosthuizen comes into the event in peak form, and the course should be a perfect fit for his smooth swing and hot putter this week.

Your Reaction?
  • 10
  • LEGIT3
  • WOW0
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: What really makes a wedge work? Part 1

Published

on

Of all the clubs in our bags, wedges are almost always the simplest in construction and, therefore, the easiest to analyze what might make one work differently from another if you know what to look for.

Wedges are a lot less mysterious than drivers, of course, as the major brands are working with a lot of “pixie dust” inside these modern marvels. That’s carrying over more to irons now, with so many new models featuring internal multi-material technologies, and almost all of them having a “badge” or insert in the back to allow more complex graphics while hiding the actual distribution of mass.

But when it comes to wedges, most on the market today are still single pieces of molded steel, either cast or forged into that shape. So, if you look closely at where the mass is distributed, it’s pretty clear how that wedge is going to perform.

To start, because of their wider soles, the majority of the mass of almost any wedge is along the bottom third of the clubhead. So, the best wedge shots are always those hit between the 2nd and 5th grooves so that more mass is directly behind that impact. Elite tour professionals practice incessantly to learn to do that consistently, wearing out a spot about the size of a penny right there. If impact moves higher than that, the face is dramatically thinner, so smash factor is compromised significantly, which reduces the overall distance the ball will fly.

Every one of us, tour players included, knows that maddening shot that we feel a bit high on the face and it doesn’t go anywhere, it’s not your fault.

If your wedges show a wear pattern the size of a silver dollar, and centered above the 3rd or 4th groove, you are not getting anywhere near the same performance from shot to shot. Robot testing proves impact even two to three grooves higher in the face can cause distance loss of up to 35 to 55 feet with modern ‘tour design’ wedges.

In addition, as impact moves above the center of mass, the golf club principle of gear effect causes the ball to fly higher with less spin. Think of modern drivers for a minute. The “holy grail” of driving is high launch and low spin, and the driver engineers are pulling out all stops to get the mass as low in the clubhead as possible to optimize this combination.

Where is all the mass in your wedges? Low. So, disregarding the higher lofts, wedges “want” to launch the ball high with low spin – exactly the opposite of what good wedge play requires penetrating ball flight with high spin.

While almost all major brand wedges have begun putting a tiny bit more thickness in the top portion of the clubhead, conventional and modern ‘tour design’ wedges perform pretty much like they always have. Elite players learn to hit those crisp, spinny penetrating wedge shots by spending lots of practice time learning to consistently make contact low in the face.

So, what about grooves and face texture?

Grooves on any club can only do so much, and no one has any material advantage here. The USGA tightly defines what we manufacturers can do with grooves and face texture, and modern manufacturing techniques allow all of us to push those limits ever closer. And we all do. End of story.

Then there’s the topic of bounce and grinds, the most complex and confusing part of the wedge formula. Many top brands offer a complex array of sole configurations, all of them admittedly specialized to a particular kind of lie or turf conditions, and/or a particular divot pattern.

But if you don’t play the same turf all the time, and make the same size divot on every swing, how would you ever figure this out?

The only way is to take any wedge you are considering and play it a few rounds, hitting all the shots you face and observing the results. There’s simply no other way.

So, hopefully this will inspire a lively conversation in our comments section, and I’ll chime in to answer any questions you might have.

And next week, I’ll dive into the rest of the wedge formula. Yes, shafts, grips and specifications are essential, too.

Your Reaction?
  • 32
  • LEGIT7
  • WOW1
  • LOL1
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP3
  • OB1
  • SHANK3

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending