Sneakylong The joke is on them. At the end of every round, at the end of every tournament, the lowest score will still be at the top.
I'll brag about my 91, when everyone else is struggling to break 100. And Pros will cash their checks the same as they do now.
If they really want to make a diff in the game, make it where the Pros can/have to play, in under 4 hours!!
Instead, they are adding time to the TV game.
So, this must be a change the sponsors want/need. More commercial time.
Spuzz Having said that, the ball is the biggest reason there was a huge jump in distance (around year 2000, coinciding with the ProV acceptance on tour)
I understand that. I'm just skeptical that the distance increase by itself has made it more difficult for the stars of the game to shine brighter than the rest of the field.
MidwayJ
No, I’m not saying it’s the ball by itself … but it probably is the most easily controlled variable to their end (as I see it - no insider knowledge).
Stats (that I’m sure the USGA are aware of)
Decade Scoring Avg. First Time Winner %
1960s 275.0 16.82%
1970s 274.3 18.33%
1980s 273.1 19.95%
1990s 271.4 19.64%
2000s 269.9 22.95%
2010s 269.8 28.43%
I can’t find it … but I believe the average age of winners has dropped as well.
So more tournaments are being won by more relatively “unknowns”. This, IMO only (as far as I know), is a primary driver in the rollback - not just overall scores. An occasional first time winner is fine, it makes for an interesting story - especially if they go on to win many more events in the future. But, take it to the extreme: 46 tournaments with 46 different winners - none of whom had ever won before, year after year after year …. Do you think this would be better or worse for golf/the PGA tour? I don’t. I think they want star power. They want an Arnold, Hogan, Jack, or Tiger. They want a “face” to the tour (or group of faces within an easily identifiable risen cream). That is what I believe this is all about, and the ball, at this time, is all they feel they can change to attempt a course reversal.
Stu1961 I think if you would take the time...a lot of time...checking the wins of those 'unknowns/younger, 1st time winners', you'd find the 'cream' of every season to be missing from those tournaments. Meaning, someone, has to win it when the top dogs are at home, or in a opposite field 'gods of golf' event. A lot of tournaments will have maybe just 1 player from the top 50 sometimes. And it is the younger players that will be playing nearly every tournament in order to get that 1st win.
And no, I personally, do not want to see anyone winning all the time. It might have been OK & good back when TW and Annika did it, but with the $$ in today's game, and the way they have it set up 'fixed', that $$ needs spread around to as many as can 'take' it.
Stu1961 46 tournaments with 46 different winners - none of whom had ever won before,
Stu1961 Yeah I get what the USGA is trying to do, but those stats on first time winners also correlate with the "Tiger effect" as athletes seeing what Woods was doing on tour were motivated to consider golf as their sport. And @Par4QC makes a good point about how the better players of today skip the "minor" tournaments, opening the door for more "unknown" winners in those events.
That’s an interesting counterpoint. In some portion of tour fields, the field has been leveled, not through bottom depth, but from top/cream absence. Further exacerbated by LIV defections. I can see that (and have, at times not even being sure it wasn’t a Korn Ferry event). Now I wonder if the timing of the rollback wasn’t tied into this? Lol
Note: I was not meaning to ask if you personally wanted to see new winners each week … I was thinking which would be better for the health/popularity/growth of golf. Personally, what would peak my own interest, would be two player’s separating themselves from the field - winning six to eight tournaments each. That’s only about 30%. Plenty of cash to still go around
Stu1961 winning six to eight tournaments each. That’s only about 30%. Plenty of cash to still go around
Not really, with the purse structure they have. Wayyyy too top heavy. The last man standing should still be able to make a living having made the cut. And they cannot.
Look at Scottie the past 2 years, ?56m total, while many players will disappear. Maybe forever. And they are damn good players deserving of a lot more money.
A lot of energy being expended on this topic that doesn't impact us amateurs for another 7 years.
I'll be 69 and who knows if I will be playing golf , or even alive at that time ( which is probably true for most of this Prune Juice membership)
By then, expect to be as cynical and crotchety as you old fcks are now so won't give a flying F what the USGA says......them sumbitches can just stay off my lawn
Sneakylong Awesome post Sneaky.
