Best Ball striker

[revkev]

Statistically Tiger Woods is the best ball striker in the shot link era, big shock right!

 

I've been playing and watching golf since 1966 and went to my first tour event in the early 70's. Since that time I've seen every great player live, have been to any number of regular tour events, several majors, a few LPGA events, web.com events, played in a few Hooters tour events and then watched after missing the cut.

 

I know this won't be a surprise but in my opinion Jack Nicklaus is the greatest ball striker of my golfing lifetime. If Tiger were a smidge better driver that might be different but in his prime Jack averaged 15 GIRs and he only played the toughest courses because his entire schedule was set around the majors. That happens because you are in the right spot off the tee, a lot!

 

I think it's important to note that when I saw Snead and Palmer they were past their prime. Everyone says that Norman was a long and straight golfer, and he was, but that's lost in the distance that modern players hit the ball. To put it into perspective Zach Johnson is longer than Norman or Nicklaus in their prime. Wieskopf was long and straight too BTW, think Adam Scott like golf swing, long, flowing.

 

Doesn't matter for ball striking though, with Jack it was fairways and greens, lots of them and the 15 green rounds probably included another time or two when he was in the fringe and could use putter. He rarely had to chip or pitch - seriously.

[Kenny B]

I agree with you about Nicklaus, but where does it say that Tiger is the best ball striker?  I don't think I have ever heard any announcer say what a great ball striker Tiger is, but it's mentioned about other golfers all the time (One of my pet peeves; they are all great ball strikers or they wouldn't be there).  Maybe it's because they fall all over themselves saying his name about everything else.  Sure, he is great; maybe the greatest from getting out of horrible lies that he put himself in.  The recovery shots are fun to watch, but I don't think that defines a great ball striker.  

 

To me, a great ball striker is fairways and greens.  That's not Tiger.  He has always been a "bomb and gouge" player with a great short game; well, until his last event anyway.  

[revkev]

It says it in the shot link stats where he blows the field away in shots gained in ball striking during the time that such stats have been kept -

 

Sometimes what we think we see is deceptive and many of the announcers are so old school that they don't look at the advanced matrix stuff.  These are the guys who continually tell us what a great putter Phil is and he's not - even our eyes tell us that.

[DanUsh]

I am younger and would have to believe that tiger is one of the best ball strikers.  It is true Tiger was never consistent off the tee but you don't have the success he did without being a great ball striker.  I feel when they talk about ball striking the player always has an iron in their hand inferring to me it has to do  with shots with an iron.  Now i could be wrong but if that is the case then Tiger is one of the best strikers of the ball out of any lie.  You don't win like him without doing that.  Giving himself shorter putts to make birdies. 

 

Now I can't talk about Jack or Snead because I was never abel to see him play.  I have heard a ton of stories of older players being great ball strikers and I think they are all true.  

 

Do we know how shotlink determines or measures this statistic.  

[revkev]

I am younger and would have to believe that tiger is one of the best ball strikers.  It is true Tiger was never consistent off the tee but you don't have the success he did without being a great ball striker.  I feel when they talk about ball striking the player always has an iron in their hand inferring to me it has to do  with shots with an iron.  Now i could be wrong but if that is the case then Tiger is one of the best strikers of the ball out of any lie.  You don't win like him without doing that.  Giving himself shorter putts to make birdies. 

 

Now I can't talk about Jack or Snead because I was never abel to see him play.  I have heard a ton of stories of older players being great ball strikers and I think they are all true.  

 

Do we know how shotlink determines or measures this statistic.

 

Shot link has all sorts of numbers, just about any stat you would like. In his book, "Every Shot Counts" Mark Broadie documents the relative performance of touring pros by categories of driving, approach shots and putting. You would have to read the book to get the formula but from 2004-2012 (when the book was written) 240 players were recorded as having at least 200 rounds. Tiger ranked 13 in driving, 1 in approach shots and 3 in putting. He was 2.79 strokes better than the tour average per round in that period. More than two thirds of that advantage, 2.16 strokes, came from driving and approach shots. If that's not great ball striking I don't know what is. That's 2 shots per round better than the average of the best players in the world tee to green.

 

I suspect that had such things been documented Nicklaus' numbers would have been similar perhaps better, although it might be a tough comparison because Jack generally played tougher courses where as Tiger often played favorite courses.

 

For Tiger fans I think he was the best clutch ball striker that I ever saw. Of course Tiger holed putts but I remember any number of iron shots on the back nine of majors to seal the deal. Jack was a machine where as Tiger at his best seemed to play with more imagination. Jacks chipping, pitching and sand play was spotty and so he would play it safe plus he was often playing courses that didn't require going incredibly low to win. I think Tiger's ridiculous short game allowed him to take some more chances with approach shots.

[BIG STU]

There is a difference between a shot maker and a pure ball striker. A shot maker invents shots and is very creative everywhere on the course. IMHO Tiger is one of the greatest shotmakers along with Phil and Seve. Bubba today is a great extension of that.

As far as ball striker I got to agree with Rev about Nicklaus and will add a couple in that era Tom Watson and Nick Price come to mind. In the modern era two readily come to mind for me Zach Johnson and Ryan Moore.

I don't do the stat thing or shotlink or what ever I just observe with my eyes and form my opinion

[Kenny B]

Yes, totally agree! It's what I was trying to say. Tiger is a shotmaker. He makes fantastic shots when he needs them (and he usually needs them after the driver). Shotlink or not, I say there have been better ballstrikers.

[revkev]

What statistics do is give us a picture of every shot hit. On TV we don't get that, we get what the producer shows us. The more shots you see a pro hit, the more bad shots you see him hit. Guess who we have seen more of than any one else in the history of golf.

 

If you can't discern better ball striking by gaining strokes or GIRs using the old school stats then I don't know how else to measure it.

 

As I wrote at the start of the thread I've seen pros hit thousands of shots including hitting balls next to them on the range. Remove the little name placards and for the life of me I can't discern who the better ball striker is. In a given round, watching them play, I can sometimes say this guy is hitting it better than that guy, today.

 

Statistically or by any other measure Tiger was a great ball striker and there truly is no one in his era that's close. He had the misfortune of us seeing all of his bad shots played over and over again and of course it's hard to forget the past two seasons where injuries and swing monkeying have taken their toll.

 

Stu I'm right with you on Tom Watson and I thought of giving him an honorable mention at the start. In many ways he's a Tiger light because his short game was so good. Folks see the highlights of the chip ins and holed putts and assume that he wasn't a good ball striker. He was very similar to Tiger, long and a bit wild off the tee, super ridiculous with his irons and the best on those rare occasions where he missed. You don't win 5 opens without being a great ball striker.

 

I'm just looking at the stats for approach shots and Chad Campbell and Tom Lehman rank 10 and 11 respectively. I've hit balls next to both on the range. I was going to mention Campbell as the best I had ever seen that close. I was right next to him warming up at a hooters tour event. He was the hot kid coming out of college and had just returned from playing in the US Open. He was very noticeable even among the other guys that were striping it. Lehman stands out as hitting the ball the same way every time and having superior distance control with his irons.

 

Has anyone mentioned Faldo yet? He was a pretty good ball striker.

[RookieBlue7]

Lee Trevino and Johnny Miller were both excellent ball strikers as well. 

For me, it's Tiger.  As I've seen him his whole career both on TV and in person.  When Tiger hits a golf ball, it makes a different sound than anyone else out there.  You don't carve up the Open championship with a 2 iron and not be a great ball striker, sorry.  Augusta, well they redesigned it because of him.  His putting has fallen off, but during his prime, you could give that man 3 clubs and he'd beat the field like a drum. 

Rory is on his way to being known as a great ball striker as well.  He too has a different sound when he hits a golf ball.

[Kenny B]

Brandel Chamblee just said that John Senden was one of the best ball strikers he has ever seen.

[BIG STU]

Speaking of Tom Watson I saw closeup his bag one year at the old Kemper Open when it was played in Charlotte. had to be in the late 70s early 80s. He had a set of Ram Tour Grinds unlike any I have ever seen before or since. They had smaller heads than even the retail versions. They were not grinded up looking or anything with no lead tape but they were just small looking.

[revkev]

Lee Trevino and Johnny Miller were both excellent ball strikers as well. 

For me, it's Tiger.  As I've seen him his whole career both on TV and in person.  When Tiger hits a golf ball, it makes a different sound than anyone else out there.  You don't carve up the Open championship with a 2 iron and not be a great ball striker, sorry.  Augusta, well they redesigned it because of him.  His putting has fallen off, but during his prime, you could give that man 3 clubs and he'd beat the field like a drum. 

Rory is on his way to being known as a great ball striker as well.  He too has a different sound when he hits a golf ball.

Exactly, the numbers bear this out. You'd have loved Nicklaus too let me tell you. Rory has his stretches for sure, he just needs to start stringing seasons together.

 

Senden is a very good ball striker just hard to take Brandel seriously. Trevino and Miller were great ball strikers for sure with majors to show for it. Very consistent.

[BIG STU]

I think IMHO in today's modern game Adam Scott and Oosty have the best fluid motion swings in the game. My all time favorite swing is Freddie Couples

[revkev]

I think IMHO in today's modern game Adam Scott and Oosty have the best fluid motion swings in the game. My all time favorite swing is Freddie Couples

Yes but fluid swings don't always equal great ball striking. Lots of great swings on tour. I like Fred's tempo, his swing? Not so much, works for him but lots going on there that he could only repeat because he was such a great athlete. Instead I would offer Ernie Els who has the tempo and the classic swing.

 

Figures you'd go for the tall guys Big Stu. How about Gene Littler? There was a classic golf swing.

[BIG STU]

You are correct on Gene Littler Honestly I had forgotten about him. Oh yeah I agree with you 100% on a good swing does not nesesscarly make a great ball striker. I see a lot of that down here today we have 2 of those PGM golf schools here and some of those kids have beautiful textbook swings but they cant actually play golf when they get on the course

[revkev]

You are correct on Gene Littler Honestly I had forgotten about him. Oh yeah I agree with you 100% on a good swing does not nesesscarly make a great ball striker. I see a lot of that down here today we have 2 of those PGM golf schools here and some of those kids have beautiful textbook swings but they cant actually play golf when they get on the course

Sometimes I wonder what one of these schools would do if Miller Barber showed up.

 

Remember him? He was actually a solid ball striker but that swing made Furyks look like a classic.

[Dhuck Whooker]

Statistically Tiger Woods is the best ball striker in the shot link era, big shock right!

 

I've been playing and watching golf since 1966 and went to my first tour event in the early 70's. Since that time I've seen every great player live, have been to any number of regular tour events, several majors, a few LPGA events, web.com events, played in a few Hooters tour events and then watched after missing the cut.

 

I know this won't be a surprise but in my opinion Jack Nicklaus is the greatest ball striker of my golfing lifetime. If Tiger were a smidge better driver that might be different but in his prime Jack averaged 15 GIRs and he only played the toughest courses because his entire schedule was set around the majors. That happens because you are in the right spot off the tee, a lot!

 

I think it's important to note that when I saw Snead and Palmer they were past their prime. Everyone says that Norman was a long and straight golfer, and he was, but that's lost in the distance that modern players hit the ball. To put it into perspective Zach Johnson is longer than Norman or Nicklaus in their prime. Wieskopf was long and straight too BTW, think Adam Scott like golf swing, long, flowing.

 

Doesn't matter for ball striking though, with Jack it was fairways and greens, lots of them and the 15 green rounds probably included another time or two when he was in the fringe and could use putter. He rarely had to chip or pitch - seriously.

I believe you mean Greg Norman,  not Moe?

 

Isn't possible that there someone on this planet who actually is the best at striking a golf ball who isn't a professional golfer, who doesn't have the confidence to cope with the stress of competition, or who doesn't have other parts of the game to score at pro level, but still has ability that strike that little ball with the center of the clubface with optimal clubface angle, clubface path, angle of attack, and clubhead speed.

 

Maybe a guy like me? Nah, it's not me.

 

Maybe it is a woman.  Let's not exclude them guys.

[Dhuck Whooker]

Statistically Tiger Woods is the best ball striker in the shot link era, big shock right!

 

I've been playing and watching golf since 1966 and went to my first tour event in the early 70's. Since that time I've seen every great player live, have been to any number of regular tour events, several majors, a few LPGA events, web.com events, played in a few Hooters tour events and then watched after missing the cut.

 

I know this won't be a surprise but in my opinion Jack Nicklaus is the greatest ball striker of my golfing lifetime. If Tiger were a smidge better driver that might be different but in his prime Jack averaged 15 GIRs and he only played the toughest courses because his entire schedule was set around the majors. That happens because you are in the right spot off the tee, a lot!

 

I think it's important to note that when I saw Snead and Palmer they were past their prime. Everyone says that Norman was a long and straight golfer, and he was, but that's lost in the distance that modern players hit the ball. To put it into perspective Zach Johnson is longer than Norman or Nicklaus in their prime. Wieskopf was long and straight too BTW, think Adam Scott like golf swing, long, flowing.

 

Doesn't matter for ball striking though, with Jack it was fairways and greens, lots of them and the 15 green rounds probably included another time or two when he was in the fringe and could use putter. He rarely had to chip or pitch - seriously.

sorry for double post having routing issues which are going to end after one or two good snacks with my 5-iron.

[revkev]

The Moe Norman thing is worth commenting on.

 

With all the respect I can muster he may be legendary, but it's easy to be legendary when no one sees what you can do. For those who are younger there was a time when professional sports was no where as lucrative as today. The big name pros up until the 60s had to supplement their income by working as club pros or salesman in the offseason. Nicklaus actually worked at his Dad's pharmacy his first couple of years.

 

In other sports there were guys who were excluded for various reasons so what I'm going to write has nothing to do with them.

 

I'm sceptical of Moe Norman's shot making ability. I'm sure he was a very good ball striker but do you know what, so was my teaching pro. Had it been pre media frenzie in a far away place maybe he'd be Moe Norman. If Moe were that great he could have made 100k plus on tour and that was huge bucks back in the day. I have no doubt he was good but I'm not buying this great stuff when compared to the big boys.

 

I believe beyond a doubt that the best ball strikers in the world play on the PGA and European Tours. It's about how you hit the ball, the combination of long, straight and consistent, if you lack one of those characteristics, you aren't on those tours and you aren't a great ball striker. within that group of the world's best ball strikers there are some better than others, that plus putting and course management sperates the good from the best.

 

I certainly would entertain an LPGA player in this thread. I've seen them up close, they hit the ball straight, long and consistent. I think lots of guys would be shocked at how long they are but that's a topic for another thread.

[Blade]

I believe you mean Greg Norman, not Moe?

 

Isn't possible that there someone on this planet who actually is the best at striking a golf ball who isn't a professional golfer, who doesn't have the confidence to cope with the stress of competition, or who doesn't have other parts of the game to score at pro level, but still has ability that strike that little ball with the center of the clubface with optimal clubface angle, clubface path, angle of attack, and clubhead speed.

 

Maybe a guy like me? Nah, it's not me.

 

Maybe it is a woman. Let's not exclude them guys.

Nope, not someone who's not playing professionally. Reason being, natural talent plays a part, of course. But, all the natural talent in the world won't get you to that level without devoting your life to the game with the ambition and drive that the top players have. If you have all of that, you're not playing on the weekend and going to a 9-5 job during the week. You're all in and you will ride it as far as you can. I can't imagine anyone putting in what it takes to even get close to one of the best and then say, "Nah, I'll keep my regular job." .

[BIG STU]

Rev ROTFLMAO I forgot about Miller Barber. That poses another question wonder what they would do if Tommy Gainey showed up? Priceless! I kid a good friend of mine who is a stellar instructor and player in his own right has a beautiful swing. Right after two Gloves won last year I sent him a U tube video and played it up as the best swing in golf. He called me and said that was the ugliest swing since Charles Barkley but I told him that swing has made him more money than you ever made giving lessons and building clubs. We got a good laugh over that and he said the only thing he could say "very true"

[Kenny B]

The Moe Norman thing is worth commenting on.

With all the respect I can muster he may be legendary, but it's easy to be legendary when no one sees what you can do. For those who are younger there was a time when professional sports was no where as lucrative as today. The big name pros up until the 60s had to supplement their income by working as club pros or salesman in the offseason. Nicklaus actually worked at his Dad's pharmacy his first couple of years.

In other sports there were guys who were excluded for various reasons so what I'm going to write has nothing to do with them.

I'm sceptical of Moe Norman's shot making ability. I'm sure he was a very good ball striker but do you know what, so was my teaching pro. Had it been pre media frenzie in a far away place maybe he'd be Moe Norman. If Moe were that great he could have made 100k plus on tour and that was huge bucks back in the day. I have no doubt he was good but I'm not buying this great stuff when compared to the big boys.

I believe beyond a doubt that the best ball strikers in the world play on the PGA and European Tours. It's about how you hit the ball, the combination of long, straight and consistent, if you lack one of those characteristics, you aren't on those tours and you aren't a great ball striker. within that group of the world's best ball strikers there are some better than others, that plus putting and course management sperates the good from the best.

I certainly would entertain an LPGA player in this thread. I've seen them up close, they hit the ball straight, long and consistent. I think lots of guys would be shocked at how long they are but that's a topic for another thread.

I don't know about your teaching pro, but someone who wins on tour 55 times, shoots 59 three times, had 33 course records, and 17 holes-in-one has to be a great ball striker. And Moe hated putting, along with the media. He would lose just so he didn't have to be interviewed. If Trevino and Singh say he was the best, I won't argue with them. I just wonder what he would have accomplished if he actually liked the spotlight.

[Dhuck Whooker]

Nope, not someone who's not playing professionally. Reason being, natural talent plays a part, of course. But, all the natural talent in the world won't get you to that level without devoting your life to the game with the ambition and drive that the top players have. If you have all of that, you're not playing on the weekend and going to a 9-5 job during the week. You're all in and you will ride it as far as you can. I can't imagine anyone putting in what it takes to even get close to one of the best and then say, "Nah, I'll keep my regular job." .

Then you are ignoring Moe Norman, who did amaze many tour pros, including Tiger Woods.  Moe Norman, who did devote his life to golf, was a wee-bit eccentric as well, enough so to ruin a chance of being successful on the PGA Tour.

 

Mac O'Grady is going to be left out of your ball-striking discussion too.

 

Tour pros do have a certain make-up to be successful, and must excel at other things which have nothing to do with ball-striking.  Namely, putting.  There isn't any name mentioned in this thread who can't make putts because if he who can't putt doesn't even make a cut in a PGA tour event.

 

My point is there have probably been hundreds of great ball strikers who fell short in professional golf because they wouldn't putt or chip.

 

Actually the guys who hit the rocks with the first golf club were probably damn good ball strikers, but they might have had real jobs too.  Somebody back then must have been good at it, else golf would have died right there.  

 

Not to be a party-pooper, I'd vote for Jack Nicklaus, 2nd Johnny Miller.  The guys in that era had different golf ball back then, plus those permission woods, great skill.

[Blade]

I'm not leaving Moe out. I'm saying there's not some guy out there who just plays for fun that would put these other guys to shame. For someone to get to that level, they'll be in the mix somehow wherever they play.

[Undershooter]

I've seen some reruns of Jack in the late years of his greatness and even that was super impressive. With that said tiger is the best of recent years in my mind. He wasn't always a terrible driver of the ball. That just seemed to come on later in his career. The guy was ridiculous for years. Seems like the switch to graphite didn't do him too well though. Not many ways to compare the ball striking skills of tiger vs Jack vs snead vs b. Jones. You can compare Apple's to apples and tiger is the best Apple of this generation by far.

[revkev]

Again with all due respect Norman won 0 times on the PGA or European Tour and frankly when he played the only major tour was the PGA tour - today both those tours are major tours.  He was cut in the only major that he attempted.

 

I'm just not buying - doesn't mean he wasn't a very good ball striker but the only way to truly test ball striking skills is to actually put them to use in tournaments and not as a range hero.

 

Statistics are revealing something that I would have never thought and that is totally against convention - putting doesn't matter that much - the gap between amateur putters and pros is not what truly makes the difference - it is the ball striking - putting might account for a stroke a round between a pro and a single digit player - 3 strokes between a pro and a 90's shooter - its distance and ball striking that is the large point of separation.

 

I'm with Blade and I'm with him in every professional sport - its a combination of natural talent and hard work that make the pro - We talked about this during the NFL playoffs where Randall Cobb caught a key pass and somehow also kept his feet inbounds - he has great natural talent but how much work, how many hours went into knowing where the sideline was and the footwork necessary to catch a ball that was in the air for 35 yards on a certain trajectory while keeping both feet in.

 

It's like that for ball striking - the guys who make a living at it have natural talent and then its their job so they work at it very hard - if they don't, they don't make any money.

[Kenny B]

There is a difference between a shot maker and a pure ball striker. A shot maker invents shots and is very creative everywhere on the course. IMHO Tiger is one of the greatest shotmakers along with Phil and Seve. Bubba today is a great extension of that.

As far as ball striker I got to agree with Rev about Nicklaus and will add a couple in that era Tom Watson and Nick Price come to mind. In the modern era two readily come to mind for me Zach Johnson and Ryan Moore.

I don't do the stat thing or shotlink or what ever I just observe with my eyes and form my opinion

 

I agree with STU that Tiger is one of the greatest shotmakers.  It's why he consistently ranks high in GIR.  But from the tee, not so much.  Contrary to what people say, Tiger has never been very accurate off the tee (PGA stats bear this out).  Even when he had his fabulous years back in 1999-2002, he only ranked around 50th in driving accuracy; most years there were over 100 pros better than him.  

 

The PGA Tour has a listing for ball striking statistics by year going back to 1980, and YES, Jack was #1 from 1980-1983. Tiger was only #1 in 2000 and has only been in the top 10 twice since 2003.  IMO, Tiger is a great ball striker as attributed to his being consistently in the top 20, but it is mostly due to his shots after he gets off the tee.  As my last comment about Tiger (real, it is.  I'm moving on), I have to say that as a ball striker, he has gotten worse with age.  Ben Hogan got better with age.

 

One thing about this discussion that we haven't agreed on is "What is ball striking?"  The PGA Tour states:  "Ball striking is computed by totaling a player's rank in both Total Driving and Greens in Regulation," and "Total Driving is computed by totaling a player's rank in both driving distance and driving accuracy."  Clearly the PGA considers driving distance, driving accuracy and GIR as the measure of ball striking.

 

Now let's get another opinion from Terry Koehler, president of Eidolon Brands and who knows what for the new Ben Hogan Golf Co.  Here is an article he wrote on June 27, 2014 as part of his The Wedge Guy series. See http://blog.scorgolf.com/2014/06/27/ball-striking-vs-shot-making/

 

==============

Ball Striking vs. Shot Making

JUNE 27, 2014   THE WEDGE GUY

 

We often hear these two terms used to describe a given golfer's particular skills, and sometimes they are used interchangeably. Today I would like to discuss the difference and then pose a question to all of you to weigh in on, if you would please.

Reading through the dialog out there, here's how I would define each and explain the difference:

“Ball striking” refers to a golfer's ability to make extremely solid contact with the ball shot after shot, club to club, with remarkable consistency. It is the core essence of the game, actually, because until you get reasonably consistent in making solid contact in the center of the face of the club, you really don't know what the ball is going to do. 

“Shot making” on the other hand, is the golfer's ability to make the ball do what he or she wants. Shaping shots to move the ball around – fades and draws, high and low, take a little off of it, amp it up a bit, etc. – these are the skills that define the highly accomplished player.

In discussions of “ball striking”, the same names come up time and again, obviously most of them successful tour professionals – Hogan, Nelson, Tommy Bolt, Lee Trevino are maybe the most noted. One of the more common is also the legendary Moe Norman. It was said by those who had the opportunity to see him that he almost never mishit a shot, and every one took off on the same trajectory and flight. It was said that Mr. Norman never achieved financial fame on the golf course, and I have read it was because of his nerves and quirky nature. Nevertheless, he is the subject of countless legends.

Moving on to “shot making”, again we see many of the same names, with the addition of Tiger Woods, of course, who has shown us some remarkable imagination and execution of shots most wouldn't even have the ability to see. It was said about Ben Hogan that he was one of the very few that combined both skills. Ben Hogan was noted for this insightful piece of advice about how to approach a pin location:

”You work the ball toward the flag. If it is in the right side of the green, you hit a fade, and hit a draw to any left flag location. Pins in the front require a high shot with spin, and those toward the back of the green require a lower shot with less spin. You always work the ball flight from the center of the green toward the edges.”

Now that's serious insight into how the game can be played . . . at least if you have complete control over the ball flight. Or at least want to. And that brings me to my question today, to which I would like for all of you to weigh in;

I would like for as many of you as possible to chime with your answer to this question:

Do you ever try to hit various shots – draws, fades, high, low, “carve it”, etc. – and how often? Only when necessary, frequently, often. Please also indicate your handicap with your answer, OK?

Let's have some fun with this.

================

[revkev]

Kenny -

 

No doubt Tiger has gotten worse with age and as his ball striking got worse so did his scoring - they go hand in hand.  I wish that you wouldn't leave - this is a good discussion and we need to define ball striking vs. shot making.  Ball striking can be described. 

 

I would suggest that the PGA tour's stats no longer work for defining the best ball striker in much the same way that batting average (a stat kept by MLB) fails to measure the most productive hitter - OPS does but it's not an official stat.

 

The PGA stats fail because they don't recognize proximity to the hole - I can hit lots of greens and be 50 feet away every time or miss a few greens but when I hit them be in birdie range - whose the better ball striker?  Statistically its the latter guy because his shots lead to lower scores.  Driving Distance plus accuracy does very little to measure the best driver because length is way more important than accuracy - Instead the strokes gained driving category is very helpful and there Tiger is better than you would suspect because he is long and even though he can get a bit wild his wildness didn't used to add to penalty strokes.

 

I don't know how you define shot making - its a less important art than it used to be because the modern ball and equipment allow players to over power the course - need to reach a tight pin?  In the old days you worked it in - today you hit it long and hit your approach shot high with very little curve.

[Kenny B]

Rev,

Not leaving the discussion, just leaving any discussion on Tiger.  We all have our opinions; I've said mine.

 

I think Koehler's description of shot making is spot-on.  Pros work the ball; some more than others and fewer with great success.  How many times have you heard on broadcasts about the "ol' double-cross"?  Bubba works the ball, nothing goes straight.  Every time I watch him hit a drive I think it's going into the next fairway!   The best I have ever seen at shot making is Corey Pavin, but he had to be good because he couldn't bomb it.  But it's more than just hitting the ball exactly the way you want to.  It's being able to imagine a shot from places you shouldn't be, and pulling it off.  That's what Tiger does better than anyone.  Oops!  I wasn't supposed to say that.  Oh well.  It's true.

[revkev]

I do think that great ball strikers are often great shot makers because the two things go hand in hand.  There is more than one way to attack a pin - some choose a shot shape and perfect it to the point that they can fit it anywhere - Watson loved the high draw and at times hit it exclusively even in the wind - how good was he at it?  He hit a shot that shouldn't have worked so solidly that he won 5 Opens.

 

Most modern players prefer the over the power the course approach.  Those who can't shape their shots - remember though that Corey is a pre-Pro VI golfer - fewer and fewer guys like him around.  Even a shorter player like Zach Johnson prefers the one shot well approach.

 

Bubba is an animal unto himself.......

 

I'm just not sure that I know how to distinguish between ball strikers and shot makers - if you are a good ball striker you'll be a shot maker because it's a matter of knowing how to curve the ball or make it go higher or lower - the more solidly you strike the ball the better you'll be at that.

 

I'm certainly open to continue this discussion because I've often wondered about this distinction.  I can measure a ball striker - GIR's, distance from the hole something like that - I don't really know that I understand the difference between shot making and ball striking.