Low Scoring And Why It's Okay To Credit The Technology
/
I’m not a huge fan of using low scoring to make the case to tighten up the equipment rules in the name of protecting skill. When scores aren’t low, the we technophobes hear stuff such as, “see, nothing to see here!” The same folks can’t be found when records are broken. Or they just chalk it up to modern athletes, arguably the last thing explaining an efficient scoring week.
So when players post a 59 and a 60 on the same day—under the relentless strain of PGA Tour Playoff pressure—it would be easy to highlight how overmatched TPC Boston looks. (Particularly when Dustin Johnson went out in 27, birdied the 10th and 11th, and seemed destined to shoot 57. )
But we know Tom Brodeur’s crew presents typically outstanding conditions. Players are usually peaking in August. And the updated modern design already appears overmatched by modern distances. Still, it’s notable how various intrusions of technological advances—clubs, balls, launch monitors, green reading books—are rarely cited in the scoring conversation.
Take Saturday’s CBS discussion citing consistency of agronomy (Dottie Pepper) and “quality of play” or “quality of setup” (Nick Faldo). No one mentioned clubs and balls which, if taken away from the players and replaced with something from 5, 10 or 15 years ago, seems more likely to impact the scoring.
Justin Thomas was asked Friday about the rounds and also noted player superiority over any outside influences:
I could play really, really great rounds and be 9-under going into 17, 18, instead of 10 or 11. It is, it's extremely impressive, and I said it a couple years ago, I still think someone is going to shoot a 56 or 57 or 58 on TOUR, whether it's next couple years or ten or 15 years. We're all getting so much better and especially if you get a place like this with really good greens, and if it's soft, we're pretty good with our distance control and pretty good at golf to where we get it rolling, who knows what it happen.
Players deserve credit for their role in performing so well, but why is it so seemingly off-limits to admit that technological advances in equipment, agronomy, club fitting, are the greatest influence of all? Or worse, an apparent insult to a modern golfer to suggest they are producing incredible scores thanks to improved implements.
PS - you’re paid to say the clubs and balls are the greatest ever made, so do it!
