Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ivan Lipko on December 18, 2014, 04:26:13 PM
-
I would like to start this thread that may sound like I am trolling the respectful members of the board. But instead I am just trying to get more knowledge and bring to life a very important question of forced carries and air game, of which there seems to be a consensus here it is bad and the sign of poor golf architecture.
I honestly believe that while golf is a great game and playing low flying shots is a ton of fun, it gets incredibly more spectacular when you can bomb the high balls. It looks better to the spectators and to the player alike. After all any hack can top the ball, and produce low flying nothing shots. Thats all that the beginners are doing when playing golf. And all they dream about is to learn how to get the ball airborne. I remember the pure excitement I felt after reaching my first 200 yard carry with the driver. It was almost like a first kiss, or something. And I didn't want my five iron to fly 140 yard carry to then roll for another 30 yard. I always wanted it to fly the full 170-180 yards carry.
I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.
Thus, why would you bash the air game all the time? I want those heroic carries that make you feel goosebumps before hitting the shot and fill your body with pure exhilaration after you achieve your goal. A good course should have those shots as well as the holes that will give you options to play a low-flying roller, especially in some conditions.
Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?
I realize there are some elderly gentleman who can not hit the ball long way physically, but you have forward tees for them. For the rest, why not man up and go for it? Golf is a multi-faceted sport and it is interesting when it is variable and requires all type of shots - long and short, high and low, rolling and with backspin. What I am missing?
PS: sorry if I offended somebody with this post it wasn't my purpose.
PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.
-
Ivan,
People who hate forced carries are bad golfers who can't consistently get the ball in the air or are playing the wrong tees.
I don't hate forced carries, unless they become overly repetitive throughout a round.
-
Nevermind
-
I don't think the objection is based on personal game around here, as most of the clamor for the "ground game" around here is basically nostalgia and a feeling that somehow golf isn't as challenging or shots aren't as much as a unique adventure as they used to be. Probably so, as golfers have tried to standardize swings and club makers standardize (and improve) clubs. If everyone is playing to shoot their best score, playing the most efficient way makes sense in the long game.
And, for short game, the running shot still makes sense in many situations (keep it lower to the ground when you can) and the only real gripe is elevated green designs with only bunkers and rough which dictate a flop shot, when there are so many other shots that might be played in the short game with bump and run, etc. In some ways, the better modern maintenance should be a boon to the short game with more predictable bounces, and most designers take advantage. Since Pebble Beach in 1992, the trend towards short game recovery areas has done nothing but increase.
But as to the long game, its much like air travel is safer than Amtrak - just a lot less things to run into up there. Until the offer clubs and balls that "fly lower" with "less spin" everyone is going to play an aerial game. Over time, the curved shot has replaced the bouncing ball as the biggest element of shot making. Probably just as difficult and challenging, but just different than it used to be.
-
It's an ongoing story, as suggested by this March, 1914 article:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7541/15866403849_c916ecffc9_o.jpg)
-
Ivan,
I played several games many years ago with an elderly gentleman who had been a pretty reasonable player, easy single figure hcp, able to get the ball into the air no problem. As he got older he lost the ability to hit the ball high. A hole on his home course, a par-5, required a carry of about 75 yds just short of the green. There was no way around, it was a forced carry or bust.
Once-upon-time this was no problem for said gentleman, but alas in later years it was not possible for him to carry this distance. Instead he used to play up to the edge of the hazard, pick his ball up, walk to the other side, drop the ball and play on. He was still playing golf, but he could no longer compete in club competitions and matches etc with his friends and fellow members. An element was now lost from his life. A great shame as he had been a stalwart of the club, competitions and inter-club matches for decades.
I am of the school that wants a route to play each hole for all players, young bucks, old guys, juniors of both sexes, ladies, men, seniors etc. Everyone, even if they have to 'tack' their way around hazards. Perhaps this is an unrealistic goal, but it's something I think should be desired and aimed for.
They may not realise it yet, but todays young bucks and bombers will be tomorrows elderly gentlemen.
Atb
-
Ivan,
Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.
Yours,
Paul Gray
3 handicapper that obtained that handicap easily enough whilst playing at an aerial course and now struggles to maintain it on a proper links course which requires shot variation. ;D
-
When I was in my 20s I probably hit the ball higher than anyone you've ever seen. Even today I still hit it higher than most. But having the ability to do something, or finding it the best way to attack a shot in a lot of cases, doesn't mean it is the best for the game. What's so exciting about hitting a high ball? If I hit a long sky high drive dead down the middle of the fairway, I won't even bother to watch it more than a 150 yards into its flight, I'm picking up my tee while it reaches its apex. I'm putting the headcover back on my driver while it lands. What's the point in watching, it is going to end up a few feet from where it lands...there's no suspense.
It is much the same thing if you hit a high ball into a soft green - in that case you watch it long enough to see it hit since you know whether it is on line or not but don't know distance wise until it lands. So that's more fun to watch, and keeps your attention for the 6 or 7 seconds it is in the air. Once it hits, the fun is over unless you hit it onto a slope that'll let it move.
The longer it takes for the ball to stop moving the longer the excitement (or fear!) of the shot lasts. Isn't that what you play golf for? If you just want to hit high balls and watch them fly, you can hit a lot more of those in less time for less money on the driving range.
As for forced carries, I don't believe in giving people too much advantage simply because they have more swing speed. Length is already its own reward, having forced carries that give longer hitters an even bigger advantage is unnecessary - it needs to really be one hell of a carry that entails some risk, not something that simply shortens a hole from the back tees to be the same length as it is from the front with a crappy little 200 yard carry.
-
Didn't even see the forced carries part, but I believe over time, we have found out that they don't bother good players but torture average ones, who make up 90% of players. Statistically, they just don't work out in very many ways as good design for a wide variety of players.
As mentioned in the HHA thread and like skydiving, its really only the last inch that matter. Strategically, a skinny angled protruding and/or cross bunker at the critical point achieves the exact same strategic objective without terrorizing the golfing populace.
-
Ivan,
Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.
I'll try to condense it for Ivan:
What Thomas Dai said, above.
-
To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you? Do you often find yourself thinking about the ball moving an inch left in a particular air pocket before breaking sharp right? Do you wonder how severe that hidden air pocket thereafter might be? Thought not.
Again, it's a massive simplification but, as I said, a full answer requires a book. Although at this rate..... ;D
-
I was playing alone in Ireland on a links. There was plenty of breeze. I thought to myself the cool thing about this shot is you have to read it like a putt. It was far more important what happened to the ball after it hit the ground than what it looked like through the air. If you just took the yardard to the pin and fired a high one at it, you had no chance. If you aimed away from the pin, kept it low, let it release, and used the slope, you had a chance. More often than not, that’s the essence of links golf. When you see it and pull off the shot, for me, there is nothing better in golf.
-
David has nailed it. The aerial game is essentially entirely within the players control. With much difficulty, it can kind of be mastered and you can see all of the possible shots. There no chance of ever seeing all of the ground options on a great course. The aerial game can be anticipated and get boring, where as the ground game is infinitely variable.
David's explanation shows why the ground game is so much fun and why pros hate it.
-
A perfect example happened to me just a few hours ago... I was walking a quick 9 with a half dozen clubs when I arrived to the par5, 7th. I had 240 to the front, but the longest club I had was my 4 iron, which only carries 190ish. I elected to close it down, hit a low boring hook, and watched as it ran down the hard pan, up the slope leading to the green and onto the front edge. If I had been carrying my entire bag, I probably would have pulled out the 3 wood, and my guess is the identical result wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying.
-
"Because golf is more fun and frankly more demanding when the strategy of the game more closely resembles pool than darts."
Another great line. If I had read David's post before posting mine, I wouldn't have bothered.
-
Didn't even see the forced carries part, but I believe over time, we have found out that they don't bother good players but torture average ones, who make up 90% of players. Statistically, they just don't work out in very many ways as good design for a wide variety of players.
As mentioned in the HHA thread and like skydiving, its really only the last inch that matter. Strategically, a skinny angled protruding and/or cross bunker at the critical point achieves the exact same strategic objective without terrorizing the golfing populace.
This.
Forced carries/air game hurt the average golfer and work in favor of the really good players disproportionate to their ability. Give everyone ground to work with and the differences in score are more proportionate to each player's ability.
Today's better players are swing robots that can repeat the same shot over and over again but that is different from the "playing" of golf. I can shoot a basketball really well but that doesn't mean I'm good in a basketball game. Forced carries and forced air game on a course only determine if you can execute your swing well that day, they don't test how well you can navigate the course and get the ball in the hole.
Someone like me (5 hcp) scores much better on cartballer, driver/range-finder/target green golf where I break 80 and my friends struggle to break 105 and we have a 25-35 shot difference. But at a place like Dormie Club I've only broken 85 once and usually struggle to break 90. My short game and touch isn't good enough to navigate the last 50 yards of the hold and all around the green. But out there my friends aren't shooting 115-125 and we all have a lot more fun.
When I played in Scotland a couple of years ago I was around 8-10 hcp, maybe lost 1 ball all week, never got in a fairway bunker, and broke 95 every round. I never went "low", but I never went shot a 110 either. And even when I made a double or triple bogey I could attribute it to my inability to pull off the shot I was attempting to hit, instead of the architect forcing one type of shot on my and basically saying "hit this target or you will make a triple".
-
The 11 th hole at my club had a pond across the approach that required a 90 yard carry. It was immediately the hole Bill Coore said was his least favorite and had been for all the years he worked on the course. I never thought much about it but he mentioned watching several groups go through not capable of the carry and mentioned we will hopefully all get there some day. He moved the pond where there is now a strip of fairway. It doesn't change the hole for most people but allows some to finish a round by the rules. It was consistent with the whole idea of making golf more fun for the high to mid handicapper but making it tougher on the good player( in a more fun way of course).
-
I find the more I enjoy architecture the more I find a blend of the two concepts. There really can be great challenge in a course with no penalty hazards such as water/OB. These and courses with slopes and gentle fall offs from green surrounds are likely the best. You can fly ball to the green, but need to position correctly or you will squander shots away with the shot game or have miraculous recovery. This still allows an aerial approach, but with touch. Playing links is still aerial to a point where you are targeting a landing point to then allow for your intended bounce and roll.
My disappointment with new courses designed with a ground intent is when the conditioning doesn't match and the course thus does not play properly and is thus a mess. You cannot force links golf and intended design on ground and turf not suited for this.
-
It's really no more complicated than the fact that algebra (due to variables) is harder than straight arithmetic, when you think about it...
LOL
it's all about the bounce which may lead to another bounce etc...etc...
for instance at Bandon the yardage to the hole is almost irrelevant 8)
-
There are plenty of shots on great links courses which require the ball to be hit in the air. The difference between the "air game" and the "ground game" is that the air game, with soft fairways and greens requires control of only two things, carry distance and direction. The ground game, however, requires control of three things, carry distance, direction and trajectory. Even amongst the very best golfers there are few with mastery over trajectory and that is what divides the great ball strikers from the rest. That's one of the reasons that hard fast courses do well at identifying the very best golfers.
-
Ivan
I don't wish to pile on so I won't. I do think golfers who always want a way out on every course are misguided. There is a time and a place for forced carries over water, but they should be reserved for the right situation using the right hazard. This almost universally means the hazard shouldn't be a long forced carry. Instead, the placement of the hazard should be the worry of archies. There are a lot of short forced carries that are wonderful holes, but I am struggling to think of many which involve a 75 or 100 yard carry.
Can you tell me about any long carry water holes you think are great an have you seen older people, kids and women trying tom play these holes?
Ciao
-
Ivan,
Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.
Yours,
Paul Gray
3 handicapper that obtained that handicap easily enough whilst playing at an aerial course and now struggles to maintain it on a proper links course which requires shot variation. ;D
oh I don't know Paul, I don't think it takes 50 pages to explain why the ground game is perhaps more interesting and has more variety than hitting high shots into receptive greens.
To my mind it is all a matter of control of the golf ball. If all you're doing is hitting a high ball to a receptive green/fairway then you are not really required to take into account how the ball will react when it lands, it will simply go splodge. No real control is required. Now as Ivan says, there is some satisfaction to be gained in seeing a ball get airborne also knowing you've hit it on the right line with the correct weight.
However how much more satisfaction is there in hitting that same shot to a fast and firm green/fairway and having to allow for how the ball will react when it lands or to hit it in such a way that it will react as you plan it to. Note, that this doesn't exclude the high shot. High or low ball flight, it doesn't matter, it's about controlling the ball from start to finish ie when it rolls out and not just when it goes splodge.
Now Ivan might say that's all very well but what about the hacker who can barely get the ball up in the air, why should they get an advantage by being able to employ the ground game ? Well, the hacker still needs to control the ball to get the required result, does he not ? Just because he sclaffs the ball doesn't mean it will nestle up to the pin in the same way that hitting a ball high will guarantee a short putt for birdie. I recall my best golf was played when I was a member at Silloth, and I regularly went round in 5 over and less in bounce games and at that time I didn't carry a driver in the bag and was hitting a skanky low fade on most shots. However I was able to control those shots and that was the key.
Niall
-
To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you?
Unless of course, you consider wind, the oldest hazard in golf!
-
I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.
.
Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?
I'd say maybe? 5% of the participants in the game can drive 230 in the air?
Not even sure the rest deserves a response, but I can't think of a way to drastically shrink the game than to adopt attitudes like this.
But good news, there's plenty out there for you to love!
-
I think its actually 15% or so. Or, at least that many are capable of it. Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.
-
To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you?
Unless of course, you consider wind, the oldest hazard in golf!
Jeff,
I'll see your 'wind' and raise you ' rain and hail stones'. They are pretty old air bourne hazards also :)
Scott
-
To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you?
Unless of course, you consider wind, the oldest hazard in golf!
Jeff,
I'll see your 'wind' and raise you ' rain and hail stones'. They are pretty old air bourne hazards also :)
Scott
But can you read them from one inch to the next?
-
I think its actually 15% or so. Or, at least that many are capable of it. Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.
Jeff,
230 yards carry in the air?
There are maybe? 2 golfers at my club(out of over 400 when you include spouses and kids) who could do that on a level tee shot.
(and we have a very young membership for a private club)
There are many more who would TELL you they could do that
I'm fully aware there are clubs where that number would be much higher, but 230 in the air is a pretty long way
15%?-no way
There are 25 million golfers out there in the US.
Remember 23 million of them are at The Villages ;)
-
I think its actually 15% or so. Or, at least that many are capable of it. Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.
We aren't talking about 230 and 260 yards drives, we are talking about 230 yard carries. Which is a long way. A 260 yard carry is getting on for a 300 yard drive.
-
If I think of every golfer I've played more than, let's say, a handful of rounds with I can think of maybe two guys who routinely get 230+ yards of carry on their tee shots. Absent wind or downhills. And maybe two others who will carry it 230-240 but only when they catch one dead solid perfect.
Of course that may just be an artifact of the selection of people who choose to play with me (not, mind you, who I choose to play with because I'll gladly play golf with just about anyone). I've played one-off or very occasional rounds with probably a couple dozen long hitters like that. But make no mistake, being able to count on something like 230 carry/260 total with a driver is a long hitter compared to the population of golfers.
Our original poster is simply evincing his own version of "1-percenter" mentality.
-
To be fair, I think there's some merit to Ivan's suggestion that an occasional forced carry is actually something TRUE high handicappers get a kick out of. I'm not talking about the high handicappers on this forum, who play competitive golf with handicaps in the upper teens. I'm talking about the 35 handicappers who play in t-shirts at the local course with $25 weekend greens fees, many of whom are beginners and some of whom will "catch the bug" and become avid players in a few years.
The carry has to be reasonable - 100 yards at most from the "white tees" where most of those guys play, and less from the "red tees." A course also shouldn't have more than 1 or 2. But I have a ton of friends who have just started playing in the last few years, hit it crooked (several are former football players who hit it very long and crooked, while others are very short hitters), and very rarely make a par playing by the rules. Those guys love the game, and they love their occasional pars and very rare birdies, but they don't make enough of either to keep them coming back.
One thing that Pete Dye says in "Bury me in a Pot Bunker" that really stuck out to me is that he likes to give high handicappers some shots that are right at the limit of their ability, knowing that when they pull it off it'll be far more memorable than any par that they make or score that they shoot. That's certainly true for my buddies, and while they have about a 1 in 25 chance of parring any hole, they have at least a 50% chance of clearing 100 yard forced carry off the tee and it's a guarantee that they'll have a little pep in their step after pulling it off.
Of course, it works best if there's an alternate route around the forced carry for the older, savvier golfer who doesn't get the same thrill out of pulling off a 100 yard carry and just wants to be able to keep playing. And any course is greatly improved if the ball moves a bit when it lands. The best courses offer interesting aerial shots and interesting ways to use the ground as well.
The biggest issue with the proliferation of aerial play has been this idea that long, high shots should be "rewarded" by stopping quickly. Guys who can hit it high but have little trajectory control have worked loudly to create the perception that good golf and ballstriking is about playing drop-and-stop golf. In reality, the best ballstrikers with the strongest aerial games understand how to control flight and trajectory and land the ball where needed to get the best result. That's why, as others have pointed out, the best ballstrikers rise to the top on fast and firm courses and particularly links courses. Playing the game through the air does not exclude using the ground as well, and a lot of guys who claim they want a "good test of ballstriking" really just want to make sure they don't get stuck on a course that requires them to actually hit shots instead of just make drop-and-stop repeated golf swings.
-
I think its actually 15% or so. Or, at least that many are capable of it. Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.
Jeff,
230 yards carry in the air?
There are maybe? 2 golfers at my club(out of over 400 when you include spouses and kids) who could do that on a level tee shot.
(and we have a very young membership for a private club)
There are many more who would TELL you they could do that
I'm fully aware there are clubs where that number would be much higher, but 230 in the air is a pretty long way
15%?-no way
There are 25 million golfers out there in the US.
Remember 23 million of them are at The Villages ;)
Jeff,
Well, I have seen industry studies that statistically about 17% hit it 260+ total (and less than 1% hit it 300), which I presumed was 230 in the air.
Actually these days, roll is far less a component for many, not all, than 20 years ago when you could presume at least 10% of a tee shot distance was roll. Now, it seems to be tied to club and ball matching to reduce spin rate and is certainly not universal.
-
Jeff,
I'm not saying those studies are wrong but I'd be very interested in finding out what their denominator is for the 17% number. As well as knowing if it's measured or self-report.
I'd almost guarantee that 17% of people who volunteer information on their driving distance will report a number 260 or higher. But based on my own experience and observation that's can't possibly be the actual, real-world, measured driving distance of 17% of the people playing golf on a given Saturday morning in June. No way, no how it's even half that much.
-
I think its actually 15% or so. Or, at least that many are capable of it. Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.
Jeff,
230 yards carry in the air?
There are maybe? 2 golfers at my club(out of over 400 when you include spouses and kids) who could do that on a level tee shot.
(and we have a very young membership for a private club)
There are many more who would TELL you they could do that
I'm fully aware there are clubs where that number would be much higher, but 230 in the air is a pretty long way
15%?-no way
There are 25 million golfers out there in the US.
Remember 23 million of them are at The Villages ;)
Jeff,
Well, I have seen industry studies that statistically about 17% hit it 260+ total (and less than 1% hit it 300), which I presumed was 230 in the air.
.
Jeff,
Those same industry standards said we needed to open a course a day for infinity.
Where on earth do they get such stats?
17% hit it 260?
-
PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.
Ivan,
If I had a nickel for every time I have heard that remark I could retire today! As someone who can consistently carry the ball 230 yards I am curious as to what you shot at Rustic Canyon, Barona and Maderas; as a San Diego resident I am very familiar with these three courses. The difference between these three courses is that it is much easier to predict what will happen when the ball lands at Barona and Maderas; both great courses with many fun shots to be played. Rustic Canyon however has the imperceptible down canyon affect and predicting what your ball will do once on the ground there is much harder. After being open for 14 years the course record is 63; they have hosted numerous qualifiers with the regions best players competing here. They have not torn the place up, although they all probably wonder when slamming the trunk in the parking lot just what went wrong!
-
Jeff,
There have been a few studies where someone just sits at a tee typical municipal golf course and records where the shots go, and how far they go. One of the more recent was by a Dr. Brodie from Va Tech (I think) who studied 1200 tee shots from various A-D level players at some pro am. None is a large sample and I may be a few % off since I am quoting from memory.
You prompted me to go back to the files, and I was a bit off. Actually, the 17% estimate was golfers who like to play courses at about 6800 yards or more, which I would equate with a 260 tee shot, as shown below.
These are the stats from a USGA one day study of middle tee players at some public course in NJ, done about ten years ago. The lines between is where I sort of arbitrarily split the tees into Black/Gold/Blue/White/Red for design purposes, sizing the tees to that amount of play. That was based on an interpolation of some other industry study about preferred playing lengths.
280+-0.9% (1% prefer playing over 7000 yards)
-----------
270-2.5%
260-7.8% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
250-5% (16% prefer playing over 6700 yards)
-----------
240-12%
230-11% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
220-8.5% (57% prefer playing over 6300 yards, so obviously some shorter hitters play too long. We can probably shamelessly stereotype these as aging males refusing to move up)
-----------
210-1.7%
200-8.5%
190-12% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
180-5.0% (19% prefer playing under 6000 yards)
170-3.4%
-----------
160-2.5%
150-2.5%
140-4.2% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
130-3.4% (7% prefer playing under 5000 yards)
-----------
<100-9.2% (MUFFED SHOTS)
And, by the way, there is some other study out there on the percentage of time average golfers miss the full shot to some degree. Seems like I saw one study where almost a quarter of all tee shots were muffed, not just 10%. But my earlier point is, a lot of 230 yard shots are off center shots by guys who are capable of hitting it 260. As it relates to carry, the question would be does a guy who can hit it 260 attempt the carry, presuming he will hit his best shot? Or does he presume he will hit it 230 (with maybe 205-210 carry) and avoid the shot? (if there is an option)
Most experts say any forced carry shouldn't exceed 2/3 of the total distance. If you do a forced carry on the tee, you can control that. )plus the ball is on a tee, adding to probability of success) If you do a Hell Half Acre somewhere mid hole, not only is everyone's carry distance different, but its not likely that all of them will get right to the edge of the hazard making it probably that a large percentage of players cannot make the carry. Again, why put such a feature in if its probable that 2/3 of your golfers cannot play over it? (sorry, topic drift from the HHA thread)
-
Jeff,
Respectfully, that's miles off then. What percentage of golfers play the right tees?
Ivan,
When you say unspectacular, do you actually mean subtle?
-
I'm reminded again of Matthew M's wonderful post about playing hickory golf, and imagining links golf at the turn of the last century as being akin to a giant game of croquet, e.g. rarely getting the ball much off the ground, and so instead threading it being humps and bumps in the fairway, working it around hazards and carries.
Peter
-
I'm amazed at how many learned people, even on this site, read "ground game" and think the writer means someone can just top the ball around the course, all day long, and really not even play golf, just an enlarged version of putt putt.
On the larger issue raised, there are many excellent posts - Thomas Dai, Shivas, Jason's, Sean's. The only thing I'll nitpick out of Ivan's opening post is the word "consistently", and I will mostly just apply it to casual golfers.
I think the game of your basic casual golfer (of which on this site there are precisely zero) is highly misunderstood. The very notion of average drive is almost meaningless. When your shots have such a wide distribution, the average of them means very little. As such, the issue isn't so much the carry as the consequences of a missed carry: is it water or some other death penalty hazard, or is it merely rough or a bunker that can be negotiated by most levels of golfers?
If someone wants a course that makes no effort at pleasing the casual golfer, that's fine by me. But don't be shocked when it doesn't get enough play for the 1st or 2nd owner to make a go of it. I can make a 230 yard carry pretty easily, with more than 1 club in my bag, but I don't generally seek courses that emphasize that element of the game.
Lest anyone think my post applies only to my game, I will offer the following anecdote, and of course it's based on something I witnessed in person at Oakmont. It was during the playoff for the last match play spots in the 2003 US Am. Standing down with the guys teeing off on #11, I saw a competitor - and this is someone PLAYING TO GET INTO MATCH PLAY AT THE US AM, not a high handicapper, not even a low handicapper, a PLUS handicapper - top his tee shot. It actually went about 50 yards and ended up in the narrow stripe of grass that is mowed down for golfers walking off the tee. He managed to get his next shot up to wedge range and knock it close enough that, when it rattled out and he bogeyed and was eliminated, it was actually pretty exciting. Imagine how much less interesting it would have been if there were a pond carry of merely 100 yards off the tee, a joke for any low handicapper. He'd have dropped and been eliminated when he didn't hole his approach shot.
And that's on a course that is widely renowned as one of the toughest in the world for the best golfers. Somehow, it is able to accommodate all levels with virtually no true "forced" carries.
All the talk of average carry distances and percentages and all that stuff completely miss the point of golf, imho: here to there in as few strokes as possible. Doesn't say anything about how, just how many.
-
Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting. It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.
-
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
-
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
Isn't one of the architect's missions to present something fun/playable that players want to come back and play again? I agree, the architect should challenge us and there is a balance between fun and challenging that must be struck. Having one HHA or forced carry doesn't make a course too tough, but many could certainly be a detraction.
I don't believe a school test is a fair comparison. The point of school is to prepare students for the future and build their intelligence. While challenging courses may prepare golfers for future rounds, that's not the primary point. The point is fun! Golf is game after all.
-
I think most beginners and high handicappers love forced carries off the tee, so long as they don't exceed much more than 120 yards or so - maybe 70 yards for ladies. That's enough to punish a mishit or topped shot, but not too far for anybody to manage with a well-hit ball. The sense of achievement in making the carry is tremendous for these guys, as I remember well from my early days as a golfer. My wife is currently at this stage in her development, and the joy on her face when she makes the fairway on one of the forced carries on our course is palpable, that joy remaining in her memory long after the subsequent four approach shots and five putts have been forgotten.
An additional forced carry is planned at Reddish Vale. Our 7th hole is a very nice par 5 of 538 yards off the back plates.
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg157/dantovey/7thhole1_zps08972040.jpg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/dantovey/media/7thhole1_zps08972040.jpg.html)
A new tee box is being built which will extend the hole by 40 yards, bring fairway bunkers back into play for longer hitters, and necessitate a carry of 120 yards over the river before the fairway is reached.
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg157/dantovey/7thhole2_zpsc0679cc7.jpg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/dantovey/media/7thhole2_zpsc0679cc7.jpg.html)
I've yet to speak to anyone who doesn't see this as an exciting improvement to an already much-loved golf hole. Even experienced golfers love the spine tingling effect of having to get a decent shot away from the tee. Of course, the better player will be more concerned with those bunkers 220 yards out!
-
Duncan
Since you are now crossing rivers, maybe the club should think about a par 3 over the river leading to the 18th tee rather than the dreadful walk back for the current 17th.
Ciao
-
I think the cost of a new bridge would be the prohibitive factor there, Sean.
We are currently building a new path from the 16th green to the 17th tee along the river bank and away from the 16th fairway. While it will still be a 200 yard walk, at least it will be a scenic one.
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg157/dantovey/16th_zps62885452.jpg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/dantovey/media/16th_zps62885452.jpg.html)
My personal preference would be for a new 170 yard hole linking the green and tee, but that will have to wait!
-
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
Patrick,
If you gave a third grader a calculus test, how would he do?
Forced carries are fine-but the player must have some ability to "take the test"
Ivan's answer that the player should "hit the gym" or "take a lesson" is ludicrous in many cases
Demanding a 200 yard carry by a player who carries it 100, yet plays the game quite well otherwise would make about as much sense.
Part of the test for the player is to determine an alternate route and part of the routing puzzle is to determine an option for the competent slower speed player or provide an alternate tee. This is solved more easily on a tee shot carry then a second, third, or fourth shot carry.
-
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
Patrick
I agree with a lot of what you write in your post. Golf should be a test, it should be a challenge, however what makes some courses great and others a slog is the nature of the challenge. It's not difficult to set up a penal course where all that is required is straight hitting however to my mind that isn't great architecture nor is it all that fun.
Carries, off the tee in particular, can be great but not sure that a forced carry makes it better. In fact I'm pretty sure it doesn't. With a wee bit of thought you can still effectively give the good player a forced carry while giving the weaker player a way of going round the carry.
Niall
-
I think the cost of a new bridge would be the prohibitive factor there, Sean.
We are currently building a new path from the 16th green to the 17th tee along the river bank and away from the 16th fairway. While it will still be a 200 yard walk, at least it will be a scenic one.
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg157/dantovey/16th_zps62885452.jpg) (http://s247.photobucket.com/user/dantovey/media/16th_zps62885452.jpg.html)
My personal preference would be for a new 170 yard hole linking the green and tee, but that will have to wait!
Well now that your green fee has gone, tell the club to create a new 17th par three over water fund :D Scrap the path going in the wrong direction, its funds spent diverting the player from the house ::)
Ciao
-
Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting. It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.
That, Dave, is unfair. Ivan was perfectly polite and, as far as I can tell, the answers to his question have been similarly polite.
-
Forced carries are one thing, but the reality is that 95% of the game in the U.S. is an aerial game. Aside from the handful of sand based courses and the upper crust of private clubs that spend big $$$s on maintenance to approximate F&F conditions, the ball doesn't run out unless you happen to catch a couple weeks of dry weather. Yes it's nice to be able to find your ball and play it, but the average player on this side of the pond is not thinking about running shots and roll out. He's dialing in a yardage on his GPS and hitting a club to that yardage, or attempting to. I'm taking up billiards...
-
I'm taking up billiards...
We should be so lucky
-
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
Isn't one of the architect's missions to present something fun/playable that players want to come back and play again? I agree, the architect should challenge us and there is a balance between fun and challenging that must be struck. Having one HHA or forced carry doesn't make a course too tough, but many could certainly be a detraction.
I don't believe a school test is a fair comparison. The point of school is to prepare students for the future and build their intelligence. While challenging courses may prepare golfers for future rounds, that's not the primary point. The point is fun! Golf is game after all.
Pat,
What he said. Of all the possible challenges a gca can throw at the golfer, we may as well use the best 36 challenge types we can find. I think a long forced carry is in a multi way tie for 37th.
-
Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting. It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.
That, Dave, is unfair. Ivan was perfectly polite and, as far as I can tell, the answers to his question have been similarly polite.
I agree that Ivan was perfectly polite and asked honest questions for discussion. Notice something? The only person that didn't reply was Ivan. The hornets nest, myself included, jumped all over his initial post and pretty much swarmed around his head, stinging him into submission to give up his apocryphal views. I think most of us have said something offhand, maybe even stupid, and been put down quickly.
That doesn't promote discussion. There is WAY too much group-think seeking consensus going on here in my view. People didn't discuss Ivan's ideas. They told him why he was wrong. In my own defense, I told him what I liked and why. My subjective opinion. Not that he was misguided, just what I liked. What's unfair about that? My later comment was sarcastic, snarky and meant to be humorous. OK, I should know better that sarcasm is tricky in text. Guilty as charged. Here's my literal thought: Ivan, keep posting; don't worry about everyone jumping on you; your voices is as important as any other; don't worry about it; it's just a bunch of overly verbal golf nuts looking for something to talk about.
I love this site. I haven't met a single person here that I didn't like. I don't expect to. Almost everyone is interested in the same things that interest me. OK, got that out of the way. Let's just say that not every thread is my cup of tea. Frankly, some of them, particularly those that go on for hundreds of pages, seem downright stupid to me. No problem, I don't have to read them. And I don't have to comment and make a case for why I think they are stupid. Just read something else. I might poke a little fun at the participants who have wasted days talking about nothing. That's hardly unfair. It's a matter of perspective--mine!--and they are perfectly right to ignore me if they want.
-
Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting. It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.
That, Dave, is unfair. Ivan was perfectly polite and, as far as I can tell, the answers to his question have been similarly polite.
I agree that Ivan was perfectly polite and asked honest questions for discussion. Notice something? The only person that didn't reply was Ivan. The hornets nest, myself included, jumped all over his initial post and pretty much swarmed around his head, stinging him into submission to give up his apocryphal views. I think most of us have said something offhand, maybe even stupid, and been put down quickly.
That doesn't promote discussion. There is WAY too much group-think seeking consensus going on here in my view. People didn't discuss Ivan's ideas. They told him why he was wrong. In my own defense, I told him what I liked and why. My subjective opinion. Not that he was misguided, just what I liked. What's unfair about that? My later comment was sarcastic, snarky and meant to be humorous. OK, I should know better that sarcasm is tricky in text. Guilty as charged. Here's my literal thought: Ivan, keep posting; don't worry about everyone jumping on you; your voices is as important as any other; don't worry about it; it's just a bunch of overly verbal golf nuts looking for something to talk about.
I love this site. I haven't met a single person here that I didn't like. I don't expect to. Almost everyone is interested in the same things that interest me. OK, got that out of the way. Let's just say that not every thread is my cup of tea. Frankly, some of them, particularly those that go on for hundreds of pages, seem downright stupid to me. No problem, I don't have to read them. And I don't have to comment and make a case for why I think they are stupid. Just read something else. I might poke a little fun at the participants who have wasted days talking about nothing. That's hardly unfair. It's a matter of perspective--mine!--and they are perfectly right to ignore me if they want.
I can't say that I disagree with the essence of your post. I'm simply not sure that anyone deserved the 'golf crazy' tag.
There are threads on here wihich go on forever about how Tiger Woods has started farting differently and such threads seem stupid to me. I'm not sure however that a thread where people passionate explain their love of the ground game is quite the same thing. And I often wonder when accusations of 'group think' emerge whether it was really such a bad thing that Colt, Mackenzie, Ross et al all came from such an apparently narrow church, assuming those commenting on the perceived 'group think' would hold the ODGs to the same standard.
But I do hope Ivan hasn't been deterred from posting, hoping thereof that he hhasn't found any of the responses to be offensive.
-
Ivan
I don't wish to pile on so I won't. I do think golfers who always want a way out on every course are misguided. There is a time and a place for forced carries over water, but they should be reserved for the right situation using the right hazard. This almost universally means the hazard shouldn't be a long forced carry. Instead, the placement of the hazard should be the worry of archies. There are a lot of short forced carries that are wonderful holes, but I am struggling to think of many which involve a 75 or 100 yard carry.
Can you tell me about any long carry water holes you think are great an have you seen older people, kids and women trying tom play these holes?
Ciao
Two famous holes on the Monterey Peninsula require significant caries. The 8th at Pebble and the 16th at Cypress. One of the few proponents of an occasional carry on this thread was Jason Thurman. In his post he does say those occasional carries should have alternative routes, and both 8 at Pebble and 16 at Cypress have alternative options. I have played Pebble a number of times with different levels of golfers and all really get a kick out of the carry at 8. The look back on 8 is the most spectacular view in golf I've experienced. I have never played Cypress but I can assure you I will not lay up and don't figure many visitors do.
Interestingly Ivan sites Rustic in his post as unspectacular. When playing from the appropriate tees the 3rd, 7th and 16th have some pretty enjoyable risk reward caries (the par 3 6th also requires a pretty decent carry). The 3rd and the 7th give players options. Unfortunately I've played the 16th from the back tees when I could not make the carry.
-
Paul,
I think you are preaching to the choir. I was, after all, one of the first to chime in and respond to Ivan. Ivan can speak for himself. I just found it a little weird that the thread ran for three pages deconstructing every word he said before letting him speak for himself. Maybe that’s what he wanted: to stir up the hornets’ nest. The group-think thing did seem implicit in his initial post—“…why ALL the hatred?” I don’t know. I was just curious to hear his response.
As for the “golf crazy” and “golf nut” bits, don’t you think, as a group, we are a bit esoteric? When compared to any notion of “mainstream” thinking, we don’t seem to fit in very prominently. I think that suits most of us. That’s why we’re here: to challenge mainstream views and nudge them in a different direction if we can, however infinitesimally. To me, that doesn’t mean our own sacred cows should not be challenged from time to time or that we have nothing to learn from the masses of golfers, just as we challenge their views, illusions, beliefs, and myths.
-
It's all good. Carry on.
-
Dave,
Probably fair to say that we broadly agree. Certainly no one gets a free pass from me.
I do equally think that all too often we pat ourselves on the back for being free thinkers; whatever that means. The reality is that we're just generally a bit better read/experienced in the subject, and only then because it happens to be a subject we have an interest in. All any of us are actually doing is standing on the shoulders [of giants], not shifting any paradigms. It's that which leads me to argue that minimalism, and this is not an insult, is nothing more than Golden Age mark II.
-
Paul,
Well said.
-
Ivan: I have a simple question for you. Which putt would give you more satisfaction when you hole it: A dead flat, dead straight 40 footer, or a double-breaking 40 footer on a wild green that moves 4-5 feet up and left and then 7 or 8 feet down and to the right at the end? Why?
I'll raise that question with a second thought. Taking just the straight 40 footer, which is more fun, ramming it home on an uphill putt on a slow green that takes 2.5 seconds to go in the hole, or hitting a slippery downhill putt on a fast green that takes 12 seconds to go in?
John Kirk postulated a law a few years back on GCA that went something like "the enjoyment of a shot is proportional to the time from when the shot is struck to the when the ball stops moving". I'd long thought that, but hadn't boiled it down into a simple sentence like he did (anyone who reads my posts knows I too often spend five minutes typing half a page at 100 wpm rather than taking four and a half minutes thinking and writing a concise 100 words that says the same thing)
-
Doug,
What you meant to say is " I'm not concise".
Joe
-
Doug,
What you meant to say is " I'm not concise".
Joe
:D
If Ran's new directives are meant to cull such architecturally un-edifying but nonetheless humorous bits of whimsy, I'm gonna delete my own profile, and take Grandpa Joe with me!
And that's all I have say (concisely) about that!*
Peter
Did you notice what I did there, paying homage to Dan Kelly while simultaneously tipping my hat to Joe?
-
Ivan,
One of my most memorable rounds of golf was at Little Met which is part of the Metroparks courses in Cleveland, Ohio.
I once stumbled upon a document that Stanley Thompson, the famed Canadian golf architect, designed the course. Maybe he did. I don't know. But Little Met is not a place to study golf architecture.
Or maybe it is.
Little Met is a 9 hole course about 2,600 yards. Really, there are no interesting or challenging holes. No good greens or bunkers. And, there are certainly no forced carries.
What you will find at Little Met is what it is like to be a beginning golfer and how hard the game really is.
So, one day I went down to Little Met and got fixed up up a guy who was, to be kind, a really bad golfer. No way he could compete with a 36 handicap. But, there was one thing I noticed about the guy: he seemed to be having a great time. Being an awful golfer didn't bother him. In short, he seemed to love the game.
When we reach the 8th hole, I finally addressed him about how much he seemed to enjoy playing. Yes, he assured me, "he loved it".
Then, I made the mistake of saying "yes, I love golf too, especially when you get to play good courses".
The guy immediately replied that he once played a good course and never wanted to do that again.
When I asked why, he said: "I already played a good course. There was this hole where you had to hit the ball 100 yards over water. I never want to do that again!".
-
If there is a way around such as the 8th at Pebble, I do not define that as a forced carry. Perhaps others agree and we may have some definitional confusion in the thread.
-
Mike if that's the way you want to go with it I only know of one hole in the world with a forced carry. The 14th at Coeur d'Alene.
Putting down the path is always an option, even at the 17th at Sawgrass. :)
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/playerschamp08/columns/story?id=3385374
-
Ivan
I don't wish to pile on so I won't. I do think golfers who always want a way out on every course are misguided. There is a time and a place for forced carries over water, but they should be reserved for the right situation using the right hazard. This almost universally means the hazard shouldn't be a long forced carry. Instead, the placement of the hazard should be the worry of archies. There are a lot of short forced carries that are wonderful holes, but I am struggling to think of many which involve a 75 or 100 yard carry.
Can you tell me about any long carry water holes you think are great an have you seen older people, kids and women trying tom play these holes?
Ciao
Two famous holes on the Monterey Peninsula require significant caries. The 8th at Pebble and the 16th at Cypress. One of the few proponents of an occasional carry on this thread was Jason Thurman. In his post he does say those occasional carries should have alternative routes, and both 8 at Pebble and 16 at Cypress have alternative options. I have played Pebble a number of times with different levels of golfers and all really get a kick out of the carry at 8. The look back on 8 is the most spectacular view in golf I've experienced. I have never played Cypress but I can assure you I will not lay up and don't figure many visitors do.
Joe
My use of "forced carry" means no way around. I am not sure if this is the same as your "significant carry", but we may be talking about different things. Although, it would be interesting if people could come up examples of good forced carries of a significant distance...say over 50 yards. There are surely many, but they may mainly be HHA type hazards rather than water.
I still prefer the type of carry where if one fails to meet the test, there is no more risk of losing the ball than any normal shot. Knob to knob type holes serve this purpose well. To hit the green one must make the carry, but it isn't death if you don't.
Ciao
-
Royal County Down has a number of forced carries, and the patently for failing to make them is usually 3 (or more) off the tee. The 2nd, 9th and 11th are all par 4 or 5s which require carried tee shots of some length, although perhaps the visual intimidation exceeds the true challenge, and the par 3 4th has nothing but trouble between the tee and green.
-
To be fair, I think there's some merit to Ivan's suggestion that an occasional forced carry is actually something TRUE high handicappers get a kick out of. I'm not talking about the high handicappers on this forum, who play competitive golf with handicaps in the upper teens. I'm talking about the 35 handicappers who play in t-shirts at the local course with $25 weekend greens fees, many of whom are beginners and some of whom will "catch the bug" and become avid players in a few years.
The carry has to be reasonable - 100 yards at most from the "white tees" where most of those guys play, and less from the "red tees." A course also shouldn't have more than 1 or 2. But I have a ton of friends who have just started playing in the last few years, hit it crooked (several are former football players who hit it very long and crooked, while others are very short hitters), and very rarely make a par playing by the rules. Those guys love the game, and they love their occasional pars and very rare birdies, but they don't make enough of either to keep them coming back.
One thing that Pete Dye says in "Bury me in a Pot Bunker" that really stuck out to me is that he likes to give high handicappers some shots that are right at the limit of their ability, knowing that when they pull it off it'll be far more memorable than any par that they make or score that they shoot. That's certainly true for my buddies, and while they have about a 1 in 25 chance of parring any hole, they have at least a 50% chance of clearing 100 yard forced carry off the tee and it's a guarantee that they'll have a little pep in their step after pulling it off.
Of course, it works best if there's an alternate route around the forced carry for the older, savvier golfer who doesn't get the same thrill out of pulling off a 100 yard carry and just wants to be able to keep playing. And any course is greatly improved if the ball moves a bit when it lands. The best courses offer interesting aerial shots and interesting ways to use the ground as well.
The biggest issue with the proliferation of aerial play has been this idea that long, high shots should be "rewarded" by stopping quickly. Guys who can hit it high but have little trajectory control have worked loudly to create the perception that good golf and ballstriking is about playing drop-and-stop golf. In reality, the best ballstrikers with the strongest aerial games understand how to control flight and trajectory and land the ball where needed to get the best result. That's why, as others have pointed out, the best ballstrikers rise to the top on fast and firm courses and particularly links courses. Playing the game through the air does not exclude using the ground as well, and a lot of guys who claim they want a "good test of ballstriking" really just want to make sure they don't get stuck on a course that requires them to actually hit shots instead of just make drop-and-stop repeated golf swings.
Jason,
I would tend to agree here. I have been going on multiple golf trips for years to Myrtle and have seen the same thing play out at the old Wild Wing Hummingbird (Jeff will remember this) course and TPC of Myrtle Beach. Some forced carries, with many of them less than 100 yards from the 'proper' box, they tend to give the player a feeling of accomplishment to navigate them despite a double-bogey.
Jeff,
I anecdotally can say that of the 400 members at my club, only about 10% can pull off carries of 230 + yards...and these are very avid players. I would think the number would be half for those that play half the rounds annually, no?
-
Joe,
For the record, I didn't design Hummingbird, Willard Byrd did, and frankly, I don't recall much of any of the other three courses there, although I did play them all at various times.
As to the driving distances, there are times when I figure the average drive should probably be much shorter than it is, but some of those studies were aimed at finding out what is really happening out there for various reasons. While all are a small sample size, I would trust them over any observers anecdotes, although if I was going to err in using those stats, I would err slightly on the side of caution.
I recall doing some double fairway holes, and the exact distance (from all tees) was always a point of hot debate. I recall pulling the carry distance back from the max on one hole, and it ended up being the route nearly everyone took. Put it too far out from the tee, and I have seen them never get used, and then eliminated. Probably not surprising, and to be honest, the USGA study, literally with tee shot distances all over the map, but sort of clustered around 260, 230, 190, and so forth, pretty much matches my "anecdotal" observations over the years, with 225-230 predominating.
Design wise, all of this goes to prove what CB McDonald and most of the GA guys figured out a century or so ago - angled hazards work better than cross hazards.
As to carries, I am all for them, and believe that the option to go around is what makes them more interesting. You feel like an idiot if you try and fail, when a safe option is available, but just feel frustrated if you have to carry something and cannot do it. Next time you play that hole, your failure figures into your thinking.
-
Ivan, Jeff, et. al.
At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?
Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?
In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?
Should the test be dumbed down ?
Yikes, what a stupid question.
The overwhelming number of forced carries in all of golf are not tests at all, other than to lousy golfers. A 150 yard carry might have been a test when Pine Valley was originally designed, or even when woods were actually wood and mishits didn't travel nearly as far, but now it's merely a barrier to entry for beginning or casual golfers.
For Pine Valley, that strikes me as entirely appropriate. For most other courses, not so much... Many forced carries today are the top shot bunkers of our time.
This is of course not at all true for forced carries on par 3s, which I don't mind. It just struck me that Ivan's post wasn't really addressing those.
-
Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,
The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.
Why all the fuss ?
-
Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,
The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.
Why all the fuss ?
I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?
Merry Christmas, Pat! :)
-
Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,
The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.
Why all the fuss ?
I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?
The point of a 90 yard carry is twofold.
1 To make you think and establish tactics
2 To execute your tactical plan and shots
Merry Christmas, Pat! :)
Ditto
-
I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!
And that's why all the fuss.
To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling. A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot. And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life. I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.
But maybe that's just me!
-
I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!
And that's why all the fuss.
To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling. A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot. And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life. I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.
But maybe that's just me!
I don't understand why you think a 140 yard carry with a 7 or 8 iron (CPC 15) is thrilling but never with a driver. Assuming a golf course isn't a steady dose of forced carries,why single out the occasional driver?
-
I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!
George, I think you're missing the true interest of a Hell's Half Acre hazard for a stronger player. We often look at design as though everyone hits the shot they planned all the time. And yes, for a strong player who hits his drive down the middle long and true, a Hell's Half Acre hazard doesn't serve much purpose, at least in 2015. It might have been more relevant in the hickory days.
For a strong player, the Hell's Half Acre becomes an issue when he misses his tee shot. Maybe he knocks it into the rough or under a tree, or maybe he mishits it and comes up well short of his typical drive. But strong players often fail to hit the shot they planned, and when they do, a Hell's Half Acre hazard becomes compelling, particularly because they occur on par 5s.
Good players know that they need to take care of business on par 5s. They expect par to be routine and birdie to be a real possibility. Therefore, when they miss a fairway and catch a poor lie on a Hell's Half Acre hole, things get interesting. If they lay up short of the hazard, they're unlikely to reach the green in 3. Of course, they can generally manage an easy bogey and maybe even a scrambling par. Those options, though, are pretty depressing for someone who arrived at the tee with birdie aspirations. The tendency is to try to get across at all costs, even if it requires a 200+ yard carry from a funky lie.
Some of my worst decisions in matches have come on holes with a Hell's Half Acre hazard, where I couldn't resist the temptation to try to get across and leave a short iron or wedge approach instead of laying up to set up a long approach. On those days, if I'm playing a weaker player in a match, the Hell's Half Acre can inspire me to make just the stupid decision that opens up the door for that weaker player to steal the hole by simply making serviceable contact after I stupidly leave my second in the hazard. On the other hand, some of my most exciting moments on the course have come when I pulled the carry off in spite of the poor decision and turned the tables on the hole after a poor tee shot.
-
I believe it is only thrilling for an incredibly small percentage of golfers, imho, not nearly enough to justify how many will be screwed by it. If I'm confronted with a 140 yard carry with my driver - or 3 wood, 3 iron, whatever - I am going to have one of two results: 1) of course I made that carry, it's a joke with this club or 2) I can't believe I mishit my driving club that badly. The answer to "Can I make this carry" is either of course or son of a bQ@#$!
Now, with an iron, on a par 3, then it becomes more of a real decision. Do I take an extra club and risk going long? Do I try to ignore the carry and just play my normal 140 yard club? Etc, etc.
I think what I really don't like about the 100-150 yard carry off the tee on a par 4/5 is that you are potentially penalizing someone doubly who already has been screwed by virtue of a complete mishit. It's like a double penalty - or triple, when you add in the penalty strokes.
With the par 3, you look at your result and are either satisfied (maybe even thrilled) or you think, I guess I chose poorly. When you duff a tee shot, you didn't choose poorly, you just didn't execute a simple shot (and I'd argue the reason for that is simply lack of play/practice). I think it's okay to ask a difficult question, I don't think it's okay to ask someone a simple question if the result is almost disastrous! :) When you duff a tee shot on a driving hole, you already penalized yourself, the architect doesn't need to add to that.
Hope that makes sense, at least somewhat. It's obviously colored by my own erratic game, but call me crazy, I think there are a lot of casual golfers like me.
Addendum: I do think a 250 yard carry with a driver is thrilling, it's just aimed at an incredibly small demographic. Those guys need to find their thrills elsewhere!
-
George, I think you're missing the true interest of a Hell's Half Acre hazard for a stronger player.
You are correct, sir. You have an amazing affinity for finding the weakest elements of my arguments and then exploiting them. I would ask that you stay away from my wife, sir!
The vast majority of my argument - maybe all of it, I gotta think more about it - is with forced carries off the tee shot. I don't have the same problem with forced carries on 2nd or 3rd shots, such as a Hell's Half Acre or a Hell Bunker or something like that. To me, those are design elements that affect one's choices, not merely execution elements that punish a lack of practice or playing (see my previous post).
-
JM,
Fair point, my wife is a legitimate 38 handicap and would hit a 9 iron to cover that distance (90 yards). Anything in front of her besides light rough or fairway and it is a crapshoot.
-
I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!
So we should dumb down the course for everyone else ?
Should we remove every architectural feature that challenges the beginner, senior or women who lack length ?
Let them take lessons, practice and get better as opposed to disfiguring the course to cater to the lowest common denominator.
And, what's the penalty for not negotiating the 90 yard carry ?
A bunker shot from a bunker lacking a steep face.
It's not a big deal.
And that's why all the fuss.
To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling.
George,
You can't have it both ways.
You can't embrace the forced carries at #'s 15 and 16 at CPC and advocate for the removal of 90 yard carriers.
A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot.
The game wasn't intended to be easy, nor was it intended to accomodate poor shots without consequences.
And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life.
By the "casual golfer" do you mean the person who doesn't take lessons, doesn't practice, doesn't play much and doesn't strive to improve their game ?
Fook em.
I don't want to play a sport on a field of play that's been modified to accomodate every "casual" golfer attempting to play the game.
I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.
Isn't the degree of interest and pressure of that carry......... "situational"
Imagine that you're only 90 yards from the green on # 13 or # 15 at ANGC.
So, you'd find nothing thrilling or exciting about that shot ? ? ?
Please.
Every shot in golf is thrilling and exciting if you're a golfer, especially those little 90 yard carriers at # 13 and # 15 at ANGC. ;D
But maybe that's just me!
It is.
-
The vast majority of my argument - maybe all of it, I gotta think more about it - is with forced carries off the tee shot. I don't have the same problem with forced carries on 2nd or 3rd shots, such as a Hell's Half Acre or a Hell Bunker or something like that. To me, those are design elements that affect one's choices, not merely execution elements that punish a lack of practice or playing (see my previous post).
The irony is that a lot of forced carries on tee shots occur because the architect is trying to get away from a swamp or low-lying part of the property near the tee because it should make the carry easier and/or because the front tees can be moved up or across the hazard. The issue with these types of carries to me is (1) how often are they used? and (2) what is the penalty for not making the carry. If they create a re-tee situation, that's not a great solution. If, like at Pine Valley, you just have a tough second shot out of the sandy areas (in most cases), then I think it works pretty well.
I coached at a course where the 18th tee was on a bluff and the shot carried a river before heading back to the clubhouse as a par five. It was a simple shot, but every year I would top it into the river exactly once over the course of the season. Drove me nuts. The most memorable case was when I was tied with our other coach, who had never beaten me at that point. I re-teed, got my 4th about 30 yards in front of the green, and holed the shot for par to tie the match.
-
The overwhelming number of forced carries in all of golf are not tests at all, other than to lousy golfers. A 150 yard carry might have been a test when Pine Valley was originally designed, or even when woods were actually wood and mishits didn't travel nearly as far, but now it's merely a barrier to entry for beginning or casual golfers.
For Pine Valley, that strikes me as entirely appropriate. For most other courses, not so much... Many forced carries today are the top shot bunkers of our time.
This is of course not at all true for forced carries on par 3s, which I don't mind. It just struck me that Ivan's post wasn't really addressing those.
I agree completely. Back in the day a 150 yard carry off the tee would have tested those who carry a well hit ball 200 yards, unless they were a proficient player who rarely mishit the ball. With everyone swinging a 460cc driver a 150 yard carry merely serves to limit accessibility to women, seniors and beginners.
Now if that 150 yard carry is off tees that those golfers "shouldn't be playing" one can give it a pass, and there's certainly something to be said for courses with a reputation as a strong test of golf like PV or CPC including such a thing. But in a typical course, I think you're 100% on the mark calling them the top shot bunkers of our time. They serve no purpose but to beat down golfers who are already at a disadvantage due to lack of distance or who are just learning the game.
-
Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,
The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.
Why all the fuss ?
I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?
The point of a 90 yard carry is twofold.
1 To make you think and establish tactics
2 To execute your tactical plan and shots
Merry Christmas, Pat! :)
Ditto
While you're right of course that this 90 yard carry in the middle of the hole does influence strategy, it is still a much larger burden for the same group I mentioned in my previous post - women, seniors and beginners. Like I said I give PV a pass because it has never claimed to be accessible to all golfers. But consider a random muni with a similar hole. You can argue that carry is strategic, but it disproportionately affects lesser golfers while being something good players can essentially ignore.
That's the problem, good players aren't really influenced by it. Let's say you have a 90 yard carry (bunker, water, long grass, doesn't matter) that is 250 yards off the tee. So you and I will need to club down somewhat to insure we don't go in it. So fine, grab a club that goes 230, maybe 240 if you're feeling greedy, and swing away. If we should happen to hit a terrible shot that goes only 180, well that's not really a concern, it is still only a 160 yard carry which is easily within our means. A golfer who carries it only 150 on their best possible shot without a tee, and wants to avoid having to carry it more than 120, has very little margin for error when approaching such a carry. That's not strategy, that's the kind of test a good player will never face...what's the point of doing that to these golfers?
The worst shot in golf is the 50 yard layup, hit by all too many seniors or women because they're too far away from a carry hazard to feel comfortable trying to hit over it, so they have to hit a ridiculously short layup.
I'm fine with forced carries for people playing the tips, and to some extent from the regular tees. But the senior/women tees should use them sparingly. Maybe have a pond in front of their tee that requires a 50 yard carry once or twice in a round, since everyone enjoys the feeling of accomplishment. If they really want to be tested, well I'd argue maybe they shouldn't get hung up on labels and shouldn't play the "women's tees" or "senior tees" just because they're women or are seniors. 20 years ago I had a girlfriend who played the men's tees when I'd play with her, and she wasn't a college level golfer. She was a college level athlete though, and could hit it a long way, and didn't like dinking it around from the short tees.
-
Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,
The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.
Why all the fuss ?
I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?
The point of a 90 yard carry is twofold.
1 To make you think and establish tactics
2 To execute your tactical plan and shots
Merry Christmas, Pat! :)
Ditto
While you're right of course that this 90 yard carry in the middle of the hole does influence strategy, it is still a much larger burden for the same group I mentioned in my previous post - women, seniors and beginners. Like I said I give PV a pass because it has never claimed to be accessible to all golfers. But consider a random muni with a similar hole. You can argue that carry is strategic, but it disproportionately affects lesser golfers while being something good players can essentially ignore.
Not when you take into consideration that women, seniors and beginners aren't supposed to par the hole.
And, since when should golf courses be designed for beginners ?
As to seniors, I take exception to that concession.
If someone can't carry the ball 120 on demand, should we dumb down the entire course for them ?
Should Streamsong, Bandon, Bethpage and others have their architecture sanitized.
It's that type of feature that attracts golfers.
Golfers tend to be a delusional bunch.
They tend to think that they can hit shots on demand that are beyond their ability.
Yet, that's part of the attraction of the game, trying to accomplish something that might be beyond our reach.
Eliminating difficult or challenging features because it might cause stress to women, seniors and beginners is a surefire way to dumb down the architecture to the point that courses become mundane, absent character and challenge.
I was once a beginner and so were you and everyone else that plays the game.
I didn't want to play a course designed for "beginners", I wanted to play Winged Foot, Baltusrol and all the venues that held big tournaments.
I wanted to "test" my game even when I was lousy.
You're like the folks advocating no outs, no winners, stay at bat until you get a hit.
That's not what attracts golfers to the game.
The challenge, the difficulty is part of the inherent lure of the game.
That's the problem, good players aren't really influenced by it.
No, you're wrong, they're influenced by it more than the others, because they must properly place their drive and execute a perfect second to traverse the hazard.
Let's say you have a 90 yard carry (bunker, water, long grass, doesn't matter) that is 250 yards off the tee.
Let's take a concrete example, not one predisposed to your conclusion.
Let's take Pine Valley's 7th.
From the back of the front tee it's 155 to reach the fairway, 280 to the front of HHA
So you and I will need to club down somewhat to insure we don't go in it.
Nonsense.
That's a poorly designed hole, one you chose to fit your conclusion.
Let's stick with a real hole, # 7 at PV.
While the best players will throttle down, I won't, I need to hit my best tee shot in the hopes of being able to carry my second.
It's a perfect hazard that places a premium on my drive and second shot.
So fine, grab a club that goes 230, maybe 240 if you're feeling greedy, and swing away. If we should happen to hit a terrible shot that goes only 180, well that's not really a concern, it is still only a 160 yard carry which is easily within our means.
Again, your example is bogus because it's configured to reach your predetermined conclusion.
Let's stick with # 7 at PV.
If I hit it 230, I've got a 140 yard carry, but, 230 isn't a bad drive for a senior or a beginner.
A golfer who carries it only 150 on their best possible shot without a tee, and wants to avoid having to carry it more than 120, has very little margin for error when approaching such a carry.
Okay, so you're chosen someone who's lousy, we get it.
Trust me, he won't be invited to play PV.
And at 150, he hasn't made the fairway.
But, let's say he hit it 155 and is in the fairway.
He now has 125 to reach the front of HHA.
Let's give him some margin and say he hits his second 115 and now has a carry of 100 yards.
If he can't carry 100, he doesn't belong playing that course.
But, let's say he doesn't or can't.
What's the big deal ?
He'll enter HHA, take a club and hit the ball until he gets out.
He's not entitled to a par, or a bogey or a double on that hole, why are you advocating for the removal of a great feature so that a hole can accomodate women, seniors and beginners ?
How does that hole play for the 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 handicap ?
And, how is he going to play # 12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC ?
# 2, 7, 8, 15 and 16 at CPC ?
PV, ANGC and CPC all have been played by women, juniors and lots of seniors.
I haven't heard any complaints from anyone about those course being so hard for them that the features should be eliminated.
You're one of the advocates for wimps, non-golfers, no talent players who don't belong on a golf course.
Most clubs have junior programs where the kids have to pass a rule test and a playing test before they're allowed on the golf course.
I've always maintained that the regular members should have to pass the same two tests.
That's not strategy, that's the kind of test a good player will never face...what's the point of doing that to these golfers?
Stop whining for those who shouldn't be playing that course, that hole in the first place.
Boo hoo, they hit it in the HHA and had to go play it.
What, is that a tragedy.
What's the big deal.
Pine Valley is a "golfer's" course.
It wreaks of "golf"
It's not for women or beginner, and probably half their membership are seniors..
Look at the carries on # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Should we remove all of the great features and carries to please a minority at the expense of the enjoyment and challenge to the majority ?
The worst shot in golf is the 50 yard layup, hit by all too many seniors or women because they're too far away from a carry hazard to feel comfortable trying to hit over it, so they have to hit a ridiculously short layup.
Baloney.
And, what you don't realize is, if that's the way they have to play, it's reflected in their handicap and they tend to be ferocious competitors.
They're not supposed to eagle, birdie and par holes, they're supposed to make big numbers, but, you want to make everything easy for them at the expense of those more likely to be impacted by the HHA.
I'm a senior and amongst the guys I've been playing with are guys in their mid 80's down to their low 70's.
One fellow, who's always been very short, tacts his way around the course quite cleverly, ditto the 85 year old
And, one of the worst golfers in our group had his career round at PV years ago.
He rose to the occassion, sucked it up and played great.
I'm fine with forced carries for people playing the tips, and to some extent from the regular tees.
But the senior/women tees should use them sparingly.
Stop the nonsense.
If they're that bad they should take up bowling or chess.
Every time I play Pine Valley or Winged Foot or other iconic and difficult courses, most of the guys playing are old guys, seniors.
What you don't get is that seniors don't want to move up, seniors don't want hazards removed for their benefit.
Seniors want to play the same course they've been playing for 40 years because to do so is to deny the aging process.
Maybe have a pond in front of their tee that requires a 50 yard carry once or twice in a round, since everyone enjoys the feeling of accomplishment.
So now you want to put ponds requiring 50 yard carries in front of two greens, but, oppose one HHA feature.
Let's weigh the penalty for failure to negotiate each hazard.
Once your women, senior, beginner hits into that pond, they're doomed.
Now the fear of failure causes them to lose control, grip the club tighter, swing faster and soon, they're out of golf balls.
And you think that's a "preferred" hazard to an HHA ?
If they really want to be tested, well I'd argue maybe they shouldn't get hung up on labels and shouldn't play the "women's tees" or "senior tees" just because they're women or are seniors.
Golf tests you irrespective of what tees you play from.
The test just gets a little sterner as you move back..
As a Senior, I won't be playing the senior tees until I'm in my 80's............ maybe.
Stop trying to eliminate the challenge that attracts golfers to the game.
Stop being a wussy.
"Golfers" are a hardy breed.
Next you'll be advocating for the removal of the cross bunker on # 17 at Streamsong Blue.
Do you really think that Bandon and Streamsong is where beginners belong ?
20 years ago I had a girlfriend who played the men's tees when I'd play with her, and she wasn't a college level golfer. She was a college level athlete though, and could hit it a long way, and didn't like dinking it around from the short tees.
My daughter was the same way. WHY ?
Because they wanted a sterner challenge, they wanted to improve and as a young person you don't improve by playing from the women's and senior's tees.
You improve by testing your game, by putting demands on your game, by forcing yourself to hit "shots" on demand, not by having the features that enhance the challenge removed.
-
I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!
So we should dumb down the course for everyone else ?
Should we remove every architectural feature that challenges the beginner, senior or women who lack length ?
Let them take lessons, practice and get better as opposed to disfiguring the course to cater to the lowest common denominator.
And, what's the penalty for not negotiating the 90 yard carry ?
A bunker shot from a bunker lacking a steep face.
It's not a big deal.
And that's why all the fuss.
To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling.
George,
You can't have it both ways.
You can't embrace the forced carries at #'s 15 and 16 at CPC and advocate for the removal of 90 yard carriers.
A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot.
The game wasn't intended to be easy, nor was it intended to accomodate poor shots without consequences.
And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life.
By the "casual golfer" do you mean the person who doesn't take lessons, doesn't practice, doesn't play much and doesn't strive to improve their game ?
Fook em.
I don't want to play a sport on a field of play that's been modified to accomodate every "casual" golfer attempting to play the game.
I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.
Isn't the degree of interest and pressure of that carry......... "situational"
Imagine that you're only 90 yards from the green on # 13 or # 15 at ANGC.
So, you'd find nothing thrilling or exciting about that shot ? ? ?
Please.
Every shot in golf is thrilling and exciting if you're a golfer, especially those little 90 yard carriers at # 13 and # 15 at ANGC. ;D
But maybe that's just me!
It is.
There are so many straw men in this that it may blow away if we get a stiff breeze... :)
Where did I say anyone should dumb down the game? I just don't believe a 90 yard carry to the fairway accomplishes anything useful, with the singular exception of wetlands type restraints that Andy mentions above. Again, I don't believe that's what Ivan was getting at in his opener, but that's neither here nor there.
I can't have it both ways? Says who, you? I can't like forced carries on demanding par 3s while feeling joke 90 yard carries to the fairway serve no real purpose in the game? It's a personal preference, for reasons that I detailed earlier and will summarize here: forced carries on par 3s serve to test both decision making and execution, while 90 yard carries off the tee merely serve to punish execution.
And try telling that guy who topped the tee shot at Oakmont DURING THE US AM PLAYOFF FOR MATCH PLAY that he just needs to invest in some lessons or practice. The beauty of Oakmont is that it accommodated his complete mishit and allowed him to have a fighting chance, whereas many other "great" courses wouldn't have.
I have no problem with thoughtful forced carries. I just happen to believe that many in today's game are not even remotely thoughtful. That's my opinion, there's no contradiction within it, no matter what you say.
I'll let you green it up and have the last word! :)
-
I always loved forced carries as it put a premium on hitting the shot the distance required, but I guess after reading thru this thread, it is too penalizing for too many players.
-
As a fierce opponent of all things aerial, I will just contradict myself, at least with regards to forced carries, by repeating a story for the hundredth time this year:
I played in a stableford event earlier in the year and was paired with a couple of older gents that played off 25 and 26 respectively. We have a number of forced carries at our rather old school links, although it should be said that only one of those carries ia truly terminal if you fail to hit the tee shot the required length. During the course of the round they explained to me that they only competed now when the event was for points because sometimes they couldn't score on a hole on account of a carry and medal play was therefore beyond them. I explained that it was one area of the course I'd like to see altered. I shouldn't have bothered! So far as they were concerned, the course wasn't there to be worked around them. If they were taking a couple of shots via gorse just to get near my drive, well done me. After all, as one of them pointed out to me at one point, they needed a 6 for 2 points where I needed a 4.
Despite carding a 79 (and it could and should have been worse) I passed an extremely pleasant and refreshing 3 hours (and not much more) with two guys that saw those carries the way I did as a 12 year old.
It's just a little tale worth considering before completely dumbing down everything.
-
Nice story Paul, and typical of the attitude I experience all the time from high handicappers - particularly older guys whose abilities are on the wane.
Stableford competitions are far preferable to these guys. They love the challenge of a forced carry but not the terminal consequences to their card that they risk in a medal round. The handicapping system enables them to compete from the same tees on a level field.
Do Stableford competitions find much if any favour in the States?
-
There are so many straw men in this that it may blow away if we get a stiff breeze... :)
Where did I say anyone should dumb down the game? I just don't believe a 90 yard carry to the fairway accomplishes anything useful, with the singular exception of wetlands type restraints that Andy mentions above.
Again, I don't believe that's what Ivan was getting at in his opener, but that's neither here nor there.
George,
You've started, far too early, on the Christmas egg nog. ;D
Your position totally ignores topography and the significant role it plays in the design of a golf course.
Many architects, such as Donald Ross, when using the available topography, often employed a high-low-high configuration with their tee-fairway-green design. That configuration often requires forced carries on the drive and on the approach.
Ross also placed a premium on carries off the tee by introducing "top-shot" bunkers.
Bunkers meant to test one of the most basic skills required of a golfer, GETTING THE BALL AIRBORNE.
I can't have it both ways? Says who, you?
Yes, me, Farky Needleman and Tommy Nacarrato
I can't like forced carries on demanding par 3s while feeling joke 90 yard carries to the fairway serve no real purpose in the game?
"No Purpose"
Yikes, put down the egg nog.
I think you just don't see, understand or appreciate the purpose.
Would it be your position that a lay up shot on your second shot, or the third shot into # 13 and # 15 at ANGC serves NO purpose ?
And, when did the focus of this thread revert to 90 yard carries off the tee.
But, since you want to discuss carries off the tee, let's continue to discuss carries in the context of Pine Valley.
Most holes require carries of 130 to 150 yards or more off the tee.
Once again, the architect is presenting you with the most basic of tests, getting the ball airborne.
Some carries, especially on the par 3's, are do or die carries, with disaster looming for the tee shot that fails to negotiate that carry.
But, forced carries aren't confined to tee shots.
Starting on # 2, the golfer is faced with a daunting forced carry, over bunkers, to an uphill fortress like green.
Daunting carries to the green are also encountered on # 7, 8, to a lesser degree on #'s 9 and 11.
To # 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18.
And, on # 18, a surprising number of golfers hit a lay up second shot, that provides them with a 60 to 120 yard shot into the green.
Pine Valley demands execution of one sort or another on every hole, with the consequences for failure, moderate to severe.
And, one of those tests meant to challenge the golfer's ability, mentally and physically, is found on # 7 where the golfer must execute three successful carries. From the tee, the other from the fairway across HHA and a third to a green surrounded by a moat like bunker.
There is nothing frivolous about the carries at PV.
Lay up second shots are found on many par 5's.
The four at ANGC quickly come to mind.
As do # 6 and 18 at PBGC.
It's a personal preference, for reasons that I detailed earlier and will summarize here: forced carries on par 3s serve to test both decision making and execution, while 90 yard carries off the tee merely serve to punish execution.
You're contradicting yourself.
They're the same thing.
You don't think that failure to negotiate the 90 or so yard carry from the front tee on # 10 at PV isn't meant to punish execution ? ? ?
The only difference between # 10 and some of the other holes is that the choice of club is different. 9-iron vs driver.
And try telling that guy who topped the tee shot at Oakmont DURING THE US AM PLAYOFF FOR MATCH PLAY that he just needs to invest in some lessons or practice.
He failed to execute under pressure. Should he be rewarded for such an horrendous shot ?
It happens to everyone and that feature is an integral part of the architect's repertoire
The beauty of Oakmont is that it accommodated his complete mishit and allowed him to have a fighting chance, whereas many other "great" courses wouldn't have.
You may want to rethink that statement.
There are a good number of holes where a failure to carry off the tee penalizes the golfer.
11, 14 and 17 come quickly to mind.
I have no problem with thoughtful forced carries.
I just happen to believe that many in today's game are not even remotely thoughtful.
So which ones at Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Seminole, NGLA, GCGC, CPC, PBGC, MPCC, Pasatiempo and Merion aren't thoughtful ?
That's my opinion, there's no contradiction within it, no matter what you say.
I understand that, I understand that neither facts nor logic will alter your opinion
I'll let you green it up and have the last word! :)
See my comments above
Merry Christmas
-
I would like to start this thread that may sound like I am trolling the respectful members of the board. But instead I am just trying to get more knowledge and bring to life a very important question of forced carries and air game, of which there seems to be a consensus here it is bad and the sign of poor golf architecture.
I honestly believe that while golf is a great game and playing low flying shots is a ton of fun, it gets incredibly more spectacular when you can bomb the high balls. It looks better to the spectators and to the player alike. After all any hack can top the ball, and produce low flying nothing shots. Thats all that the beginners are doing when playing golf. And all they dream about is to learn how to get the ball airborne. I remember the pure excitement I felt after reaching my first 200 yard carry with the driver. It was almost like a first kiss, or something. And I didn't want my five iron to fly 140 yard carry to then roll for another 30 yard. I always wanted it to fly the full 170-180 yards carry.
I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.
Thus, why would you bash the air game all the time? I want those heroic carries that make you feel goosebumps before hitting the shot and fill your body with pure exhilaration after you achieve your goal. A good course should have those shots as well as the holes that will give you options to play a low-flying roller, especially in some conditions.
Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?
I realize there are some elderly gentleman who can not hit the ball long way physically, but you have forward tees for them. For the rest, why not man up and go for it? Golf is a multi-faceted sport and it is interesting when it is variable and requires all type of shots - long and short, high and low, rolling and with backspin. What I am missing?
PS: sorry if I offended somebody with this post it wasn't my purpose.
PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.
very sad perspective :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
some things can't be fixed, LOL
wow ::)
-
I would like to start this thread that may sound like I am trolling the respectful members of the board. But instead I am just trying to get more knowledge and bring to life a very important question of forced carries and air game, of which there seems to be a consensus here it is bad and the sign of poor golf architecture.
I honestly believe that while golf is a great game and playing low flying shots is a ton of fun, it gets incredibly more spectacular when you can bomb the high balls. It looks better to the spectators and to the player alike. After all any hack can top the ball, and produce low flying nothing shots. Thats all that the beginners are doing when playing golf. And all they dream about is to learn how to get the ball airborne. I remember the pure excitement I felt after reaching my first 200 yard carry with the driver. It was almost like a first kiss, or something. And I didn't want my five iron to fly 140 yard carry to then roll for another 30 yard. I always wanted it to fly the full 170-180 yards carry.
I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.
Thus, why would you bash the air game all the time? I want those heroic carries that make you feel goosebumps before hitting the shot and fill your body with pure exhilaration after you achieve your goal. A good course should have those shots as well as the holes that will give you options to play a low-flying roller, especially in some conditions.
Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?
I realize there are some elderly gentleman who can not hit the ball long way physically, but you have forward tees for them. For the rest, why not man up and go for it? Golf is a multi-faceted sport and it is interesting when it is variable and requires all type of shots - long and short, high and low, rolling and with backspin. What I am missing?
PS: sorry if I offended somebody with this post it wasn't my purpose.
PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.
very sad perspective :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
some things can't be fixed, LOL
wow ::)
Ah yes, the golf club atlas version of political correctness strikes again!
-
Jeff,
Please. Whenever I hear the phrase "political correctness" thrown around, IN ANY WALK OF LIFE, I just take it to be an attempt at damage limitation from those that once represented the status quo and are none to happy about progress, whatever that means. History never judges anyone well for throwing that phrase about.
-
Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game. IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time. So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both. ;D
-
Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game. IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time. So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both. ;D
Honda grip?
-
Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game. IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time. So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both. ;D
Honda grip?
A honda grip is when one get's his right hand (for a right handed golfer) up under the club and it works like a guy turning the throttle on a motorcycle...have you never heard that????
-
A honda grip is when one get's his right hand (for a right handed golfer) up under the club and it works like a guy turning the throttle on a motorcycle...have you never heard that????
;D. Never heard that one before--I should've guessed.
-
Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game. IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time. So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both. ;D
Maybe. I've heard an awful lot of hatred though from intellectually challenged average golfers because "my ball won't stop on the green."
As you said, good golfers can play both. Unfortunately, one of those options is more akin to darts than snooker. I prefer snooker.
-
Paul,
I'd have to contest your preference in the realm of practicality, if not necessity.
I recently played Streamsong and the course was very Fast and FIRM.
Play to the greens was anything but darts, but, in order to reach a good number of the putting surfaces an aerial approach was required.
In addition, the ground game can only function properly if the terrain permits it.
Examples that many might identify with are the 4th on the Blue and perhaps the 7th and/or15th on the Red.
Approaching # 4 Blue on the ground is impractical if not impossible.
In addition, the ground has a greater chance of deflecting my shot away from the intended target, versus air.
In most instances, I can be far more precise with an aerial shot than I can with a ground shot.
Under windy conditions a modified combination of both can be effective.
-
Maybe. I've heard an awful lot of hatred though from intellectually challenged average golfers because "my ball won't stop on the green."
As you said, good golfers can play both. Unfortunately, one of those options is more akin to darts than snooker. I prefer snooker.
Paul,
The guys I play with wish to play the best they could and become better and better. If you begin to play with those guys you will lose if you just play snooker. However this site provs there is a very small element of the game that enjoys just walking, hitting the ball and finding it and hitting it again. For that guy the hype and talk of the ground game etc may be all he needs.
-
Paul,
I'd have to contest your preference in the realm of practicality, if not necessity.
I recently played Streamsong and the course was very Fast and FIRM.
Play to the greens was anything but darts, but, in order to reach a good number of the putting surfaces an aerial approach was required.
In addition, the ground game can only function properly if the terrain permits it.
Examples that many might identify with are the 4th on the Blue and perhaps the 7th and/or15th on the Red.
Approaching # 4 Blue on the ground is impractical if not impossible.
In addition, the ground has a greater chance of deflecting my shot away from the intended target, versus air.
In most instances, I can be far more precise with an aerial shot than I can with a ground shot.
Under windy conditions a modified combination of both can be effective.
Truer and more-apt words were never spoken. On this topic at least, Patrick has it exactly right. :)
-
Stableford competitions are far preferable to these guys. They love the challenge of a forced carry but not the terminal consequences to their card that they risk in a medal round. The handicapping system enables them to compete from the same tees on a level field.
Do Stableford competitions find much if any favour in the States?
Duncan,
A very popular way of scoring regular "dogfight" game (what you might call "roll up" I believe) at many clubs is what we call a points game. Basically Stableford scoring. In its most popular form it counts up each player's gross Stableford points then adds in points at the end representing the handicap strokes, rather than applying the strokes to certain holes and do net Stableford.
I think the reason that game is preferred is because you don't want to hang about all day while double-digit handicappers try to grind out their occasional 9 or 10 on a hole where they lost three balls.
-
Maybe. I've heard an awful lot of hatred though from intellectually challenged average golfers because "my ball won't stop on the green."
As you said, good golfers can play both. Unfortunately, one of those options is more akin to darts than snooker. I prefer snooker.
Paul,
The guys I play with wish to play the best they could and become better and better. If you begin to play with those guys you will lose if you just play snooker. However this site provs there is a very small element of the game that enjoys just walking, hitting the ball and finding it and hitting it again. For that guy the hype and talk of the ground game etc may be all he needs.
But then that is dependant on the course, hence the historic promotion of courses which ask more of the player than simply giant darts. I promise you that your friends would soon come unstuck at my links if they attempted to negate trouble with an aerial approach to the game. And it's that greater thought which I honestly think hooks people to the game long after most people that haven't experienced that sort of game have concluded that golf is nothing more than an occasional hobby for them.
-
But then that is dependant on the course, hence the historic promotion of courses which ask more of the player than simply giant darts. I promise you that your friends would soon come unstuck at my links if they attempted to negate trouble with an aerial approach to the game. And it's that greater thought which I honestly think hooks people to the game long after most people that haven't experienced that sort of game have concluded that golf is nothing more than an occasional hobby for them.
[/quote]
Nope, they've played those courses. They would play what was required. You menation the "greater thought" concept above. I think it's just the opposite in that so many that spout the ground game don't really know how to play...they have no idea what "greater thought" is when it comes to scoring. JMO
-
As evidenced by this very thread, far too many people - even thoughtful people - can't understand the difference between a strategic carry and a stupid carry. So the stupid carries tend to proliferate... along with the stupid posts........ :)
Sure, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but sometimes a carry is stupid. As Andy points out, sometimes it's not the architect's fault (enviro restrictions, etc), but that doesn't make it any less stupid.
I don't believe that those criticising stupid carries are advocating dumbing down courses, they're simply requesting more thoughtful carries and fewer stupid carries.
Black and white architecture < grayscale architecture < full 32-bit color architecture!
Happy New Year everyone!
-
As evidenced by this very thread, far too many people - even thoughtful people - can't understand the difference between a strategic carry and a stupid carry. So the stupid carries tend to proliferate... along with the stupid posts........ :)
George,
Would you cite the "stupid" carries at Merion, Oakmont, Pine Valley, NGLA, GCGC, Shinnecock, Streamsong and Hidden Creek ?
Thanks
Sure, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but sometimes a carry is stupid. As Andy points out, sometimes it's not the architect's fault (enviro restrictions, etc), but that doesn't make it any less stupid.
I don't believe that those criticising stupid carries are advocating dumbing down courses, they're simply requesting more thoughtful carries and fewer stupid carries.
Black and white architecture < grayscale architecture < full 32-bit color architecture!
Happy New Year everyone!
-
There are none at Oakmont. Gotta think about Hidden Creek. Haven't had the pleasure of playing the others. :)
-
Ivan,
One of my most memorable rounds of golf was at Little Met which is part of the Metroparks courses in Cleveland, Ohio.
I once stumbled upon a document that Stanley Thompson, the famed Canadian golf architect, designed the course. Maybe he did. I don't know. But Little Met is not a place to study golf architecture.
Or maybe it is.
Little Met is a 9 hole course about 2,600 yards. Really, there are no interesting or challenging holes. No good greens or bunkers. And, there are certainly no forced carries.
What you will find at Little Met is what it is like to be a beginning golfer and how hard the game really is.
So, one day I went down to Little Met and got fixed up up a guy who was, to be kind, a really bad golfer. No way he could compete with a 36 handicap. But, there was one thing I noticed about the guy: he seemed to be having a great time. Being an awful golfer didn't bother him. In short, he seemed to love the game.
When we reach the 8th hole, I finally addressed him about how much he seemed to enjoy playing. Yes, he assured me, "he loved it".
Then, I made the mistake of saying "yes, I love golf too, especially when you get to play good courses".
The guy immediately replied that he once played a good course and never wanted to do that again.
When I asked why, he said: "I already played a good course. There was this hole where you had to hit the ball 100 yards over water. I never want to do that again!".
Thank you Tim!
Now to continue reading the thread and see if you get ridiculed. I certainly get ridiculed when I put forth the view of such players. Most here seem to think guys like you report on here don't exist, or "should take lessons".
-
I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!
And that's why all the fuss.
To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling. A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot. And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life. I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.
But maybe that's just me!
No, it's not just you. And, annoying is a very good word for it. And, finally it is even more annoying to play with another duffer that says the carries are fun, because they are a challenge all the while failing to make the carry several times in succession.
-
I always loved forced carries as it put a premium on hitting the shot the distance required, but I guess after reading thru this thread, it is too penalizing for too many players.
Why do you need more than 18 of them? 18 approach shots "put a premium on hitting the shot the distance required". I'm guessing that concept has been tested enough without putting stinking ponds in the way other places on the course.
-
Paul,
I'd have to contest your preference in the realm of practicality, if not necessity.
I recently played Streamsong and the course was very Fast and FIRM.
Play to the greens was anything but darts, but, in order to reach a good number of the putting surfaces an aerial approach was required.
In addition, the ground game can only function properly if the terrain permits it.
Examples that many might identify with are the 4th on the Blue and perhaps the 7th and/or15th on the Red.
Approaching # 4 Blue on the ground is impractical if not impossible.
In addition, the ground has a greater chance of deflecting my shot away from the intended target, versus air.
In most instances, I can be far more precise with an aerial shot than I can with a ground shot.
Under windy conditions a modified combination of both can be effective.
[/quote
I'd agree with all of that, hence firm and fast courses resist low scoring in a way that hasn't been achieved by softer courses despite the endless procession of more length. It's no coincidence that a firm and fast Open Championship taxes the best more, as was equally true of the US Open this year at a firm and fast Pinehurst. When conditions are soft, all anyone can think of is the mind numbing defence of longer and thicker rough adjoining 20 yard wide strips of short grass.
Mike,
I will respectfully (genuinely) refer you to the point I made in my first post on the thread. It needs a considered approach and a full book by the likes of Tom Doak to give a valuable, full answer to this question.
-
GJ & George,
Maybe you're playing from the wrong tees !
-
GJ & George,
Maybe you're playing from the wrong tees !
Patrick,
See http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60189.msg1424158.html#msg1424158
Do you want me to move forward? Given that I was having so much fun?
Note, there are no forced carries over water at Chambers Bay.
-
GJ,
I think that the concept of moving forward is a function of whether your game is improving or on the decline, and..... maybe......static.
One of the great things about golf is the almost universal quest to "aspire" to improve.
That "quest" seems to transcend the fact that one's game is either on the rise or decline.
I think there's a "golfing blind spot" in our brain that won't acknowledge are true abilities.
It's probably a defense mechanism.
I think it was Rotella who stated that golf was such a difficult game that golfers have to look beyond themselves and blame someone or something else for their shortcomings.
And, I think that the concept of "moving up" may be an admission of our shortcomings.
The decision as to which tees to play appears to be a state of mind.
Unfortunately, like the sheep, our minds lie to us.
-
...
The decision as to which tees to play appears to be a state of mind.
...
Or, maybe it is dependent on the course. Narrow and penal, play forward. Wide and forgiving play back and have fun.
-
Great discussion here.
Basicallly, I noticed two ideas.
1. Golf course should be playable to all, including elderly, children and women.
2. Aerial game is no fun, because it is one dimensional and thus easy.
To this I say,
1. I agree, that's why we have different sets of tees. There must be tees that basically start on the fairway at any course. That's where the beginners should play. And, of course, there always has to be a route around hazards, making it playable according to the rules, without having to grab the ball and put it on the green.
2. I don't think golf is easy. Even on a calm day, I haven't seen too many players destroying the course hitting perfect straight aerial shots to the perfectly flat greens and shooting 62s.
A firm and fast course with uneven fairways, approaches and greens and steady gusty wind is more unplayable than any forced carry monster. Yes, you won't lose balls, but you won't make too many pars, birdies and even bogies. You can't control the ball consistently so that you can play under par in these type of conditions, that's why pros hate it. Too much depend on luck on these courses. It's fun and it is quirky, but it is no sport.
Imagine playing tennis or soccer over humps and bumps, how fun would that be?
-
Ivan,
5 pages of responses and that's your takeaway? You understand that firm and fast can be difficult and don't like it for that reason? Your mistake is attributing that difficulty to luck. In most cases it has nothing to do with luck but more to do with an inability (or unwillingness) to think about what will happen when the ball hits the ground or an inability to control the trajectory at which it does. At the very top level More skillful golfers like fast and firm because it helps differentiate their game from lesser golfers. Woods winning at Hoylake? Michelson at Muirfield? Examples of the most skilled player in the field winning out by using the conditions to their advantage.
Your interpretation of skill is the ability to hit the ball high and far. You appear to ignore the skill required to control distance and trajectory and to play different shots for different conditions.
-
Mark,
The world is full of golfers like Ivan who believe the purpose of the game is to test how high, how far and how straight you can hit the ball, along with how well you can control the distance it travels through the air. A lot of those folks (not speaking for Ivan) spend an inordinate amount of time by my reckoning on the practice range, standing in front of a video camera or being measured by a Trackman to develop their capabilities to hit higher, straight, more accurate shots more consistently.
Golfers with that sort of aspirations quite rightly prefer long courses with forced carries, penal hazards, basically whatever features are the most demanding of maximum height, distance and accuracy. Because the purpose of the golf course is to enable them to hit "far and sure" shots under exacting requirements. Then back to the practice tee to "get better" and try again next time.
With that mindset, it would seem natural to deride firm-and-fast fairways as a tricked up situation that lets weaker hitters roll the ball for extra distance while often causing "random" or at least hard to anticipate movement of the ball after it has been hit high, long and straight. Such a course setup obscures the test. It does not clarify the difference between a good, strong shot and a better, stronger shot. It turns the whole enterprise into a game rather than an examination.
Ivan,
If my comments do not apply to yourself, please do not take offense. Whether you are one of them or not, the world of golf and particularly the world of internet golf forums (this one somewhat excepted) is full of people who are far more interested in exhibiting the strength and state of development of their golf swing than playing a simple game and hitting a ball so it bounces along the ground eventually rolling into a hole.
-
A firm and fast course with uneven fairways, approaches and greens and steady gusty wind is more unplayable than any forced carry monster. Yes, you won't lose balls, but you won't make too many pars, birdies and even bogies. You can't control the ball consistently so that you can play under par in these type of conditions, that's why pros hate it. Too much depend on luck on these courses. It's fun and it is quirky, but it is no sport.
Imagine playing tennis or soccer over humps and bumps, how fun would that be?
Now this is getting interesting.
The conditions you describe above are certainly challenging, but they're far from dependent on luck. In fact, I would argue that the Open has proven that such conditions greatly and almost unfailingly reward the most gifted ballstrikers - the men most capable of controlling their ball when faced with multiple variables like uneven lies, firm conditions, high winds, and unforgiving bounces. While it takes undeniable talent to hit the ball high and straight every time, it takes far more talent to control the ball like Hogan or Woods or any other number of Open champions who can hit the right shot for a situation even if it isn't a stock high straight ball. To comprehensively test a player's game, courses need MORE variables, not fewer.
That's what links golf provides in spades: variables. I'll defend your love of the aerial game to an extent. I enjoy hitting shots that hang in the air for a long time, and I enjoy the occasional forced carry. But if your argument is that drop-and-stop golf in soft conditions is a better test, and that courses whose presentation accommodates or even encourages ground game options are too reliant on luck, then I think you're confused. The more variables in play that affect the ball's journey (wind, humps, hollows, firmness, uneven lies), the more skill required to navigate them. It's just icing on the cake that some of those variables also serve to make the game more fun for players who lack the skill required to really score well but who still enjoy watching their ball move with the wind, bounce along the ground, and roll out farther than usual.
Your tennis and soccer comparison makes no sense, as the very thing that makes golf special is that its playing fields aren't static. As the venue changes, so do the shots required and the possible outcomes change along with them. Here's a more apt comparison: If we were going to have a contest to find out who's the best driver, would we do it on a long, straight road where the person with the fastest car will win with little emphasis placed on handling or controlling the vehicle in adverse conditions? Or would we do it on a narrow, winding road with loose pavement and hazards that fully test our abilities to control the car in every situation? I know I think the latter would be the better test, and perhaps more importantly, it also sounds a lot more fun and interesting. The long, straight road is a lot like an aerial golf course where the longest and straightest hitter will win almost every time. The narrow, winding road is more like a links course, as it requires creativity and a more comprehensive set of skills to navigate. It takes skill to hit the high straight ball, but that's just one of the 9 flights that good players try to hone and a course that never calls for deviation from that one flight isn't a very good test at all.
-
To Jason's excellent car and driver analogy I'd add one other observation. Golf is one of the few sports where each player play independently of any action taken by the other player(s). When I am playing my shot there isn't a thing in the world an opponent can do to make it harder or easier or to vary the type of challenge I face.
The ever-changing playing field and the fact that golf balls would just as soon bounce or roll as fly through the air lends the necessarily variation in the challenge and provides the uncertainty and need to react that are provided by opponents in most other sporting games.
To use the tennis example, you don't need the tennis court to cause one ball to bounce higher than another. That is up to the opponent to produce with his shot. Your golf opponent can not put english or topspin on your approach shot to force you to react. That is up to the golf course.
-
GJ & George,
Maybe you're playing from the wrong tees !
Nope. I can carry the ball plenty far, more than far enough for just about any forced carry in the game. I just don't particularly care for lost balls or penalty drops on the occasional horrible tee shot, when the horrible tee shot is more than enough to deal with. I don't believe the majority of forced carries are thoughtful, merely excessively penal to those who least need the penalty.
Most HHers aren't lacking in the ability to get the ball airborne, which is what some on this thread seem to think. Even a 36 handicapper is taking only 2 additional shots per hole; when you consider how poor their short games are, it's not unreasonable to conclude they are losing 1 shot off the tee and approaches and 1 around/on the green. You don't shoot 100 by topping the ball constantly or lacking the ability to get it airborne. You just hit a wider variety of shots that get you in trouble. And that's not even counting bogey golfers, who are on average losing about a stroke a hole. You don't do that struggling to get the ball airborne.
People who can't get it airborne at all aren't HHers, they are beginners who don't even keep score. That's what ranges, par 3s and little 9 holers are for, learning to scrape it around. Similarly, people who'd like to see the occasional mishit accommodated are not asking for hazards to be removed from the game, they're asking them to be thoughtfully placed.
Aren't you a "one set of tees is ideal" kinda guy, anyway? :)
-
George,
I learned the game 20 years ago on a course that wasn't a little Par 3 or executive course. And I sure as hell didn't learn it at a driving range.
I lived right down the street from a somewhat scruffy course with tiny greens, unirrigated fairways, few bunkers and only a couple of short forced carries on the entire 27 holes. Played about 6,000 and a few hundred more from the tips but it played shorter because the ball rolled and again, few forced carries (and none even close to being 90 yards across).
Tiny little Par 3's and whatnot squeezed in to tiny parcels of land bounced by swamps or houses are the absolute worst place to introduce a beginner to the game. It teaches them to steer the ball and inculcates a serious degree of fear and second-guessing about whether each shot will lose a ball (or break a window on a house or go into a busy street!).
No, put them out on a couple hundred acres of golf course that hasn't been tricked up with forced carries, penal hazards and all-carry shot requirements. Let their 50-yard-offline bad shots be hopefully recoverable or if not at least make sure they can stay on the property if they open their shoulders up and hit a wild one.
-
A firm and fast course with uneven fairways, approaches and greens and steady gusty wind is more unplayable than any forced carry monster. Yes, you won't lose balls, but you won't make too many pars, birdies and even bogies. You can't control the ball consistently so that you can play under par in these type of conditions, that's why pros hate it. Too much depend on luck on these courses. It's fun and it is quirky, but it is no sport.
Alister MacKenzie disagrees with you on this. He points out that the better players gain an advantage playing from uneven fairways and greens. The objection that better players have is that it prevents them from going way low. So what are you playing golf for? To hit from driving range lies, or to test your skills?
-
A firm and fast course with uneven fairways, approaches and greens and steady gusty wind is more unplayable than any forced carry monster. Yes, you won't lose balls, but you won't make too many pars, birdies and even bogies. You can't control the ball consistently so that you can play under par in these type of conditions, that's why pros hate it. Too much depend on luck on these courses. It's fun and it is quirky, but it is no sport.
Alister MacKenzie disagrees with you on this. He points out that the better players gain an advantage playing from uneven fairways and greens. The objection that better players have is that it prevents them from going way low. So what are you playing golf for? To hit from driving range lies, or to test your skills?
Exactly. And as I said on page 1 of this thread:
Ivan,
Respectfully, read far more from some of the ODGs or perhaps Tom Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course and I think you'll have a far better grasp of the notion. You have, quite reasonably, asked for clarification. Unfortunately, that clarification would take at least fifty pages. It is a gross simplification to think that firm and fast is simply a concession to less able players.
Essentially, we can either go on spoon feeding information or we can implore Ivan to get an education on the subject the old fashioned way, i.e. read the relevant books and play more proper courses. To begin, still possibly the best two book I've ever read on the subject. :
The Anatomy of a Golf Course - Tom Doak
Economy in Course Construction and Green-Keeping - Dr. Alister Mackenzie
I'm not sure that there's really much to add, excellent though some of the responses have been.
-
I doubt very much that Ivan wishes to be further "educated" about the opinions of people who do not share his fundamental assumptions and who do not see the game as having the same ends as he is pursuing.
If you want golf to be a feat of strength and coordination, with the winner being the strongest and fastest golfer with the best swing mechanics the Doak or MacKenzie have very little to offer.
-
George,
I learned the game 20 years ago on a course that wasn't a little Par 3 or executive course. And I sure as hell didn't learn it at a driving range.
I lived right down the street from a somewhat scruffy course with tiny greens, unirrigated fairways, few bunkers and only a couple of short forced carries on the entire 27 holes. Played about 6,000 and a few hundred more from the tips but it played shorter because the ball rolled and again, few forced carries (and none even close to being 90 yards across).
Tiny little Par 3's and whatnot squeezed in to tiny parcels of land bounced by swamps or houses are the absolute worst place to introduce a beginner to the game. It teaches them to steer the ball and inculcates a serious degree of fear and second-guessing about whether each shot will lose a ball (or break a window on a house or go into a busy street!).
No, put them out on a couple hundred acres of golf course that hasn't been tricked up with forced carries, penal hazards and all-carry shot requirements. Let their 50-yard-offline bad shots be hopefully recoverable or if not at least make sure they can stay on the property if they open their shoulders up and hit a wild one.
Interesting take. I didn't spend much time no the range before learning, but I played enough sports growing up that I never had trouble with a basic swing.
At any rate, the par 3s and little 9 holers in my area sound more like the course you learned on.
-
I doubt very much that Ivan wishes to be further "educated" about the opinions of people who do not share his fundamental assumptions and who do not see the game as having the same ends as he is pursuing.
If you want golf to be a feat of strength and coordination, with the winner being the strongest and fastest golfer with the best swing mechanics the Doak or MacKenzie have very little to offer.
That does somewhat make assumptions about Ivan's wishes. You may of course be right but I'm just throwing it out there since he asked the question in the first place, presumably not with an agenda to tell us all that we are wrong.
-
I doubt very much that Ivan wishes to be further "educated" about the opinions of people who do not share his fundamental assumptions and who do not see the game as having the same ends as he is pursuing.
I actually think Ivan knows all this and is just playing devil's advocate.
If you want golf to be a feat of strength and coordination, with the winner being the strongest and fastest golfer with the best swing mechanics the Doak or MacKenzie have very little to offer.
I trust they no longer need to contest The Masters at Augusta National then, and forget about holding the President's Cup at Royal Melbourne anymore.
-
Tiny little Par 3's and whatnot squeezed in to tiny parcels of land bounced by swamps or houses are the absolute worst place to introduce a beginner to the game. It teaches them to steer the ball and inculcates a serious degree of fear and second-guessing about whether each shot will lose a ball (or break a window on a house or go into a busy street!).
No, put them out on a couple hundred acres of golf course that hasn't been tricked up with forced carries, penal hazards and all-carry shot requirements. Let their 50-yard-offline bad shots be hopefully recoverable or if not at least make sure they can stay on the property if they open their shoulders up and hit a wild one.
I sometimes wonder what my game would be like if I'd learned on a short tight little course that made me swing with fear instead of freedom. I'd probably hit it straighter but shorter than I do today. But I may not have liked the game enough to stick with it long enough to play other courses.
When you play a course that just has little rows of trees to separate fairways, so a wild shot is probably just in another fairway and you can always find a safe line to avoid risking any sort of OB/lost ball/unplayable type penalty it is a very different experience than playing one with houses, protected wetlands, or thick forest lining the fairways. The only real hazard on the course I learned my first summer was a pond that was maybe 120 or 130 yards to carry. But it wasn't really a forced carry, as you could tee off at a 30 degree angle to the right if you wanted to play safe. That's where beginners should learn.
-
Some photos of the courses mentioned in the thread.
I will start with Maderas - my second or may be even first most favorite course in CA (from the ones I was privileged to play). From a purists stand point it must be considered bad GCA (hence the title of the thread). It has a lof of forced carries, and may be for some it is unplayable.
But it is wonderfully firm, wildly beautiful and on some holes it takes your breath away.
It has some diagonal hazards, beautiful contours to the green complexes and is overall a serious challenge. The course record is 63 set by Charley Hoffman (per caddie's words).
Sorry for the photo quality, they were taken using my iPhone. And I am not a great photographer by any means.
This is I guess, a second shot on the 18th hole. I posted it to illustrate how the great green colors and firmness of fairways are not mutually exclusive. You can easily get a 30-40 yard roll on these fairways, which I believe is great for good golf. So the firm stuff shouldnt necessarily look like a concrete parking lot.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7319/15888261143_43597a2f07_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qcZuuX)IMG_0032 (https://flic.kr/p/qcZuuX) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
18th fairway again, just love the colors and the light, bring some sweet memories. BTW, this tree block the right side of the fairway and makes you lay up if you don't hit your first shot to the correct part of the fairway.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7334/15888261553_b9f431e403_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qcZuC2)IMG_0030 (https://flic.kr/p/qcZuC2) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
18th tee-shot. Notice the tree on the right, and the bunker on the left. You either hit to the perfect spot right in between the two, or you are in trouble. Or just lay up with a shorter club from the tee and have a decent three shotter coming. The fairway sweet spot is actually much wider than what it looks like, so this hole also plays visual games with you. Love it
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7457/16322142319_4b83e227df_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qSkffT)IMG_0028 (https://flic.kr/p/qSkffT) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
The hole #17. A sweet short downhill par 3. I have never played the Royal County Down but his hole makes me think of it. Wild, natural and beautiful. 3 months from the day of the game I still remember the wild putting surface. Sweet, sweet, sweet.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8608/15888262653_b16d7761e5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qcZuWZ)IMG_0027 (https://flic.kr/p/qcZuWZ) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
More to follow.
-
Par 5, hole 14 third shot. Uphill and diagonal. You better now your distances and hit it solid.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7360/16322143989_a1041839bd_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qSkfKF)IMG_0022 (https://flic.kr/p/qSkfKF) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
Long par 4 on the back nine, probably # 13. Wide target and a "roll over". You better hit it long, because your second shot is to a well protected green, guarded by water.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8655/15885859344_ec99c1d0bc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qcMbwC)IMG_0019 (https://flic.kr/p/qcMbwC) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
The second shot, the green is wide and narrow, the water is menacing, there is still some room for conservative play out to the right.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7365/16506695881_8434b9abd1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/r9D8AR)IMG_0020 (https://flic.kr/p/r9D8AR) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
This must be hole 8 tee-shot. Again diagonal water and actually the farther right you go, with a slight draw the better. The second and third shots are uphill and the green is well bunkered and tiny, so the closer you get to it the better.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7447/16482430526_3d9a7b0235_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/r7uLmE)IMG_0013 (https://flic.kr/p/r7uLmE) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
Green of the hole 6. Shows you the nature of green complexes on the course.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7360/15885861464_4099f86c98_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qcMcab)IMG_0011 (https://flic.kr/p/qcMcab) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
Bunkers on #10. Short hole that makes you think of your tee-shot more than once, especiall if there is some wind. Plays much harder and much longer than the scorecard says.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/15886022094_d1bc70735f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qcN1UE)IMG_0017 (https://flic.kr/p/qcN1UE) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
Par4, hole #5. Monster downhill hole, that is conducive to playing a well controlled draw. The moment it turns into a hook you are done.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7437/16507566942_fe409ab759_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/r9HAx9)IMG_0009 (https://flic.kr/p/r9HAx9) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
Lastly, hole #1. I decided to post it for two reasons. First, I like the photo. Secondly, it is another great hole. The fairways is tilted right to left and has a dogleg to the left. If you play too much of a draw you ball may end up in the creek that bisects the hole.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7343/16322674367_d37e718cae_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qSnYq8)IMG_0007 (https://flic.kr/p/qSnYq8) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr
The creek that runs along the left side of the hole, and then turns back to protect the green.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7375/16506900321_2eaf57e57d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/r9EbnF)IMG_0006 (https://flic.kr/p/r9EbnF) by I.L1986 (https://www.flickr.com/people/60832735@N08/), on Flickr