Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JR Potts on January 27, 2015, 02:50:09 PM
-
The modern design and distance thread below got me thinking: have many been trying to protect against distance the wrong way? Instead of adding multiple tees in line with the desired line of play, could distance concerns be obviated by adding multiple tees perpendicular to the line of play? Can and should these angles be used to increase the difficulty of a hole instead of distance?
No course that I've played better does this than Butler National. Butler seems to have tees everywhere; and they're often used on multiple holes. They don't necessarily add length (although some of them certainly do), but they change the angle of play, making tee shots much more challenging.
Seems to me to be a cheaper, more effective and more interesting way of battling distance.
-
I am a fan of angles. I especially like holes where angles mean that taking an aggressive line off of the tee is rewarded with an easier approach shot or taking the safe line makes for a more challenging second shot.
It makes "straight" holes play less straight and it can make flat property way more interesting.
-
Seems to me, if we are indeed "battling distance",
that we should simply battle distance.
I.e. the way baseball eventually addressed steroids rather than enlarging every ballpark, but I guess golf manufacturers have better lawyers than steroid peddlers.
that said, and to get back to the original premise, different angles for different tees is a great concept,though I'm not sure it's cheaper
-
that said, and to get back to the original premise, different angles for different tees is a great concept,though I'm not sure it's cheaper
What Jeff said.
Butler National is an interesting (and ironic) example in a discussion on battling the distance issue. I think Butler does a great job of asking you to create your own angles for your second shot with your tee ball on quite a few holes, but the predominant theme of the course is that you have to hit it far.
-
Angles dramatically increase the distance advantage of a longer hitter if he can hit it straight. If one person flies the ball 20 yards past someone else, he might have a 20-25 yard advantage on a straight hole. On a hole angled at 45 degrees to the right, those extra 20 yards of carry mean the player can aim 20 yards further right and gain a significantly greater advantage.
So - angles might be desireable but they do not battle distance.
-
Angles dramatically increase the distance advantage of a longer hitter if he can hit it straight. If one person flies the ball 20 yards past someone else, he might have a 20-25 yard advantage on a straight hole. On a hole angled at 45 degrees to the right, those extra 20 yards of carry mean the player can aim 20 yards further right and gain a significantly greater advantage.
So - angles might be desireable but they do not battle distance.
Assuming that is true, doesn't a different angle off the tee change the characteristic of the hazard and bring hazards into play that might not otherwise create a problem. Furthermore, angles will likely require a player off the tee to shape the ball to fit his/her tee shot into the driving zone...something very few are comfortable doing.
-
Maybe we could add more trees?
Isn't this how some of the " strategy" tree movement took root? Rather than change an angle add a tree to accomplish it cheaply?
-
Angles absolutely are the answer if the question is how to accommodate the PGAT as well as golfers.
Quail Hollow: wide playing corridors and -- here's the course's major contribution to this discussion -- tee boxes for the pros over to the side of the inside angle, tee boxes for everyone else more in line -- note: NOT in line -- with the axis of the post-dogleg part of the hole. Put something of interest and challenge on the inside of the leg: this builds the pleasurable excitement for the golfer. The flogger probably doesn't care about that feature, he's thinking more about running through the leg -- or better yet about how to make a tee ball move after it's traveled 240+ yards.
I am not sure how this would work on par 3s. :P
-
Angles dramatically increase the distance advantage of a longer hitter if he can hit it straight. If one person flies the ball 20 yards past someone else, he might have a 20-25 yard advantage on a straight hole. On a hole angled at 45 degrees to the right, those extra 20 yards of carry mean the player can aim 20 yards further right and gain a significantly greater advantage.
So - angles might be desireable but they do not battle distance.
Assuming that is true, doesn't a different angle off the tee change the characteristic of the hazard and bring hazards into play that might not otherwise create a problem. Furthermore, angles will likely require a player off the tee to shape the ball to fit his/her tee shot into the driving zone...something very few are comfortable doing.
JR -
What Jason is missing is that you're not talking about the problems in the disparity of how far different golfers hit the ball, you're talking about how golfers today can drive the ball further today than they did 10 or 20 years ago. At least that was my read.
Sven
-
Let's not omit the effectiveness of diagonal hazards, even centre line hazards, on straight holes. Simple but effective IMO.
Atb
-
There is a huge mistake in all this thinking.
THE BALL GOES FURTHER
How many courses have been lengthened because of this assumption?
The confusion starts because the whole of golf looks at the Tour Pros, their driving stats and sure enough, there is evidence to support that the ball in fact does go further.
However:
The balls the modern Tour Pros are using do go further than the balls that the Tour Pros of 30 years ago were using.
The balls the average golfer is using do not go further than the balls the average golfers was using 30 years ago.
The Pros were using balata, the modern tour balls spin less and go further.
Average golfers have probably never even hit a balata ball, all the popular balls for average golfers 30 years ago are every bit as long as any ball on the market today.
The ball does not go further; balata ran out, the pros started using balls more similar in distance to what the average golfer has been using for 40 years.
-
Over the last 40 years we've seen technological advances in golf balls and golf clubs that reduce spin.
That in itself is enough to lead to an increase in average driving distance by average golfers.
-
Over the last 40 years we've seen technological advances in golf balls and golf clubs that reduce spin.
That in itself is enough to lead to an increase in average driving distance by average golfers.
Sven, let's stick to the ball for a minute. So you're saying the modern average players ball spins less than say an old rock like a PINNACLE or Top-Flite? How much further do you think you could hit a run of the mill average modern ball vs an old top-flite or pinnacle?
-
Mark,
You make a good point about a modern Tour ball going the same driver distance as a Top Flite of 30 yaers ago.
But those Top Flites of 30 years ago weren't being propelled by a driver 2-3 inches longer on a super light shaft with an engineered/optimized weighting system , and a rebound effect, creating perfect launch and spin conditions, even on minor mishits.
The the ball IS going longer, just not ALL because of the ball, and as you state, low spin hot balls were available 30 years ago, just not chosen generally by experts due to tradeoffs in spin and feel.
-
Over the last 40 years we've seen technological advances in golf balls and golf clubs that reduce spin.
That in itself is enough to lead to an increase in average driving distance by average golfers.
Sven, let's stick to the ball for a minute. So you're saying the modern average players ball spins less than say an old rock like a PINNACLE or Top-Flite? How much further do you think you could hit a run of the mill average modern ball vs an old top-flite or pinnacle?
Mark:
I chose my words carefully. I specifically referred to both the ball and the clubs.
There is no sense in having a conversation about how far the ball flew or flies if you don't talk about both sides of the equation.
Sven
-
Mark, I understand your point and generally agree with it, but I think you may be mistaken about the ball. Without getting into it in too much detail, I agree that average players haven't benefited much from ball technology, but longer better players have.
That said, I do think the new balls go further for the pros that any of the old balls. Plus, the new balls are playable whereas the old hard one's were not.
-
Let's not omit the effectiveness of diagonal hazards, even centre line hazards, on straight holes. Simple but effective IMO.
Atb
Agreed, but that's my point. With the right angles created by lateral tee placement, you can create those same effects...just by moving the teeing surface.
-
I'm a big fan of the use of angles in design. Whether or not it helps to defend against the endless pursuit for distance in the ball or club design, it does bring strategy and decision making back into the game. A long hitter on a straight hole just swings hard. They hit it past the obligatory 265 yard bunkers that are left and right of the fairway and the closer they get to the green, the better. With a well designed dogleg, a ball bombed from the tee on the wrong line can wreak havoc, especially if the miss is on the outside of the dogleg and the drive goes through the fairway. Toss in a few well placed diagonal hazards and it gets even tougher. The long hitter might now think three wood or hybrid, which could lessen their advantage.
To do this though, the course needs to have enough property. Straight holes back and forth fit in much more neatly on a plot of ground, which may mean more houses, but that is a different discussion!
Greg
-
Jeff,
I was hoping you'd chime in, I thought you'd get my point. Couldn't agree more with you regarding the driver. Std length of a driver was 43.5 vs the norm now of 45/45.5. The other consideration is that the average golfer didn't even have a 1 wood in the bag! It was all 2 woods and 3 woods at 41.5 to 43 depending on manufacturer.
Sven,
Why not? The conversation about the lengthening of courses and the solution is so convoluted with misinformation some clarity needs to prevail. The suggestion from leading commentators about "dialling the ball back" has been lapped up by the general golfing public that now accept it as fact that the ball they use on the weekends goes further than the ball they used 20 or 30 years ago. The ball is not culprit. The technological improvements in the driver are.
DMoriaty,
Happy to go into detail.
-
Sven,
Why not? The conversation about the lengthening of courses and the solution is so convoluted with misinformation some clarity needs to prevail. The suggestion from leading commentators about "dialling the ball back" has been lapped up by the general golfing public that now accept it as fact that the ball they use on the weekends goes further than the ball they used 20 or 30 years ago. The ball is not culprit. The technological improvements in the driver are.
And even in that little statement you misrepresent the whole story. The top of the market ball does go farther, if you have the swing speed to take advantage of it.
Even if you don't, they have now optimized midrange balls to fit slower swing speeds (there's a reason you were finding so many MC Lady's on the course a while back). And they're all going straighter, because the clubs are built to forgive mishits.
Its not just the drivers, and its not just the ball. They work in concert, and if you want to have any kind of meaningful conversation about dialing anything back, you need to include all the variables.
Sven
-
There is a huge mistake in all this thinking.
THE BALL GOES FURTHER
How many courses have been lengthened because of this assumption?
The confusion starts because the whole of golf looks at the Tour Pros, their driving stats and sure enough, there is evidence to support that the ball in fact does go further.
However:
The balls the modern Tour Pros are using do go further than the balls that the Tour Pros of 30 years ago were using.
The balls the average golfer is using do not go further than the balls the average golfers was using 30 years ago.
The Pros were using balata, the modern tour balls spin less and go further.
Average golfers have probably never even hit a balata ball, all the popular balls for average golfers 30 years ago are every bit as long as any ball on the market today.
The ball does not go further; balata ran out, the pros started using balls more similar in distance to what the average golfer has been using for 40 years.
Mark - while you are generally correct that the average player does not hit it much farther than he did 30 years ago, the more relevant inquiry for the purpose of golf course design is whether or not the range of distances amateur players playing the course has changed. On that front, there is no doubt that there has been a dramatic change.
I play in a tournament each year on a course that has not changed over the last 30 years and I play with essentially the same people I played with 30 years ago - single digit handicaps but no one could be considered extraordinary long off the tee. I guarantee you that 95% of clubs in the US have guys that can hit it past our group. When our longest hitter entered the long drive competition he lost by 60 yards.
30 years ago the par fives were reachable in two for the rest of the group (not me) but required a good drive and a good three wood. Now, one guy regularly reaches par fives with seven irons and all of us (including me) can get there on the right day. We are all in our upper 40's and I guarantee you we do not swing as hard as we once did.
Dan Pohl was once the long drive leader on the PGA tour at 274 yards. Now, every club in the US has someone who can average that distance. In the Minnesota State Amateur championship a couple of years ago, 33% of the participants averaged over 300 yards off the tee and the average distance was more than what Pohl averaged. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56334.0.html . The tournament was contested in warm weather but the course had received 3 inches of rain shortly before the tournament.
There are a number of factors that have resulted in increased driving distance - the ball, graphite shafts, MOI (maybe), and increased shaft length made possible by larger driver heads and lighter overall weight.
-
Mark - while you are generally correct that the average player does not hit it much farther than he did 30 years ago, the more relevant inquiry for the purpose of golf course design is whether or not the range of distances amateur players playing the course has changed. On that front, there is no doubt that there has been a dramatic change.
Thank you. Now can we stop the I&B ranting and talk angles?
-
Mark - while you are generally correct that the average player does not hit it much farther than he did 30 years ago, the more relevant inquiry for the purpose of golf course design is whether or not the range of distances amateur players playing the course has changed. On that front, there is no doubt that there has been a dramatic change.
I play in a tournament each year on a course that has not changed over the last 30 years and I play with essentially the same people I played with 30 years ago - single digit handicaps but no one could be considered extraordinary long off the tee. I guarantee you that 95% of clubs in the US have guys that can hit it past our group. When our longest hitter entered the long drive competition he lost by 60 yards.
30 years ago the par fives were reachable in two for the rest of the group (not me) but required a good drive and a good three wood. Now, one guy regularly reaches par fives with seven irons and all of us (including me) can get there on the right day. We are all in our upper 40's and I guarantee you we do not swing as hard as we once did.
Dan Pohl was once the long drive leader on the PGA tour at 274 yards. Now, every club in the US has someone who can average that distance. In the Minnesota State Amateur championship a couple of years ago, 33% of the participants averaged over 300 yards off the tee and the average distance was more than what Pohl averaged. http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56334.0.html . The tournament was contested in warm weather but the course had received 3 inches of rain shortly before the tournament.
There are a number of factors that have resulted in increased driving distance - the ball, graphite shafts, MOI (maybe), and increased shaft length made possible by larger driver heads and lighter overall weight.
Jason,
We all agree there has been an increase from the tee for the average golfer and we all agree that this subject goes hand in hand with the lengthening of golf courses. Threads continue to pop up trying to combat the problem from an architectural perspective. My point is that to progress the discussion, the very problem and how it came about needs to be understood before any proposed solution could be devised. In my original post, I'm saying the ball and the distances gained at the Tour Pro level vs yesteryear should be taken off the table because they convolute the understanding of the problem. The ball is not the problem.
I don't doubt Dan Pohl's driving average, but short of identifying a problem that we all agree is real (golfers are hitting it further off the tee), what does it tell us? It does not provide any evidence that the club golfers modern ball goes further than the club golfers ball of 30 years ago, because he wasn't using a club golfers ball, he was using balata. All of your examples only point out that the golfer is hitting it further from the tee, there is no evidence that the ball is responsible. But, like so many, you assume that the modern run of the mill ball is a factor in increased distance.
There is also another never mentioned aspect to this discussion that should be considered if architectural solutions are to be considered: shot dispersion
With increased distance comes increased shot dispersion. We always hear how golfers are hitting it further, but they are also hitting it wider!
Which is rather ironic considering the current mantra from some for width!
The only solution I can see is modifying the equipment rules on woods....limit head volume...compulsory stainless steel head material....and maybe shaft.
Mark,
Angles: Don't you think that angles make landing zones wider for the longer hitter?
-
Mark,
Angles: Don't you think that angles make landing zones wider for the longer hitter?
Sure, ceteris paribus. Nothing wrong with that, since the longer hitter, if he is not going to attempt to shape a shot with his driver, may well hit his tee shot with a club that likely gives him more control and therefore practical width, anyway.
To be clear, the angled-tee setup I am promoting is not a line of tees but rather the back tee over to the inside of the dogleg, and forward tees progressively towards the outside, such that the angle of the dogleg is sharp from the back tee and decreases as the tees progress forward.
In other words, I am proposing angles as a way to present fun and challenge for as many golfers as possible. If you put two golfers of vastly differing tee-ball lengths on the same tee, that's a different issue altogether. Always has been, always will be.
-
Mark
I have long advocated sharper angles for back tees rather than added length. Mind you, there needs to be a fair amount of width back at the tee area to pull this off...not sure many classic courses have this sort of space to really go to town with the idea, but a happy medium can surely be struck.
Ciao
-
Sean
The main objection would be potentially negating the longer hitter's length. I think there's merit in that but the length isn't taken away per se but is unlocked only with the combination of length and ability to shape shots. And isn't the ability to control one's ball the ultimate measure of golfing talent?
Anyway, one of the keys for me is to put a feature on the inside of the dogleg. The meaning of that feature is dependent on the tee -- and can change dramatically. Which is fascinating to me for some reason.
-
A fairway shaped like a banana has greater impact on length + accuracy than anything I know.
The further you go, the more you must work the ball of fit the shot.
The shorter you go, the more hole lines up for you.
The best example I can remember "consistently" asking for this was the "pre-renovation" Royal Montreal, where trees reinforced the banana shape fairways. Tough driving course for the long players at that Canadian Open.
-
Mark
I know I wouldn't find a steady diet of inside dogleg trees or bunkers for 18 holes. I only mention the idea as a way to combat pros. Lord help us if that is a method used for "normal" clubs. Still, I like the idea of width created at the tee, but not to the degree of banana holes. Width can also be just for variety without huge differences in angles. I say use the space if it is available. I can imagine a lot more tees forming a V around the previous green.
Ciao
-
Sean
Well, yeah, I'm certainly not advocating 14 dog legs. We are in agreement this really is about the one percenters vs the rest of us. Putting some sort of a feature on the inside keeps the hole interesting for both groups but in different ways. For those of us with a straighter hole, it's something to get past or to challenge. For the 1% it's something to carry, avoid or get past when you start bending the ball.
I wonder if instead of an inside feature how an outside feature might work. How would a reverse dogleg work with this tees en echelon idea?
Ian, I am with Sean: no banana holes please! That might hold in the long drivers but can be like a par 8 for the rest of us. :P
-
I realized once I went to get an example - that the shape was up to interpretation.
I intended something subtle like this:
(http://bestclipartblog.com/clipart-pics/banana-clip-art-7.jpg)
-
I do like the banana idea. Could you cant the fairways further down the banana to increase the penalty of a bomber not working the ball enough?
What about worrying about the angle of the 2nd shot for the 1% instead of the angle of the tee shot? It seems as if the long bombers don't worry so much about diagonal hazards, esp the few that work the ball well.
Or perhaps showing the landing zone clearly for the average hitter where the long bomber cannot so easily demarcate his landing zone. Not necessarily a blind shot but one where it's tough to see exactly what is going on and creates uncertainty in the mind of the player. Even if one is familiar with the course there's something about not being able to see exactly what's out there that messes with the mind of the player.
It's a tough problem because there is a fine line between making it more difficult for long bombers vs. overtly punishing legitimate advantages long hitters have due to genuine talent.
-
Ian, this is the type of hole I have in mind. Note tees locations. Do we have the same idea?
(http://psychobunny.smugmug.com/photos/i-33hdf2J/0/XL/i-33hdf2J-XL.png)