Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: mike_malone on July 15, 2018, 10:52:11 PM
-
I am done with those who want to turn short fives into fours. For all but a small number of golfers they test the short game if well designed.
( I deleted the second part because it has distracted from my original intent— to say that a well designed short five tests the short game and unmaskes those with lesser skills).
-
I am done with those who want to turn short fives into fours. For all but a small number of golfers they test the short game if well designed.
The short shot separates skill levels more than the long shot.
Basically, the governing bodies are the ones you want...
I insist the removal of individual hole par will clear the deck of such issues and breath some fresh air into GCA.
In the four skills levels I roughly perceive...
Pro to 2 HCP
3 - 9 HCP
10-18 HCP
18+ HCP...
In my witness, each group hits it nearly the same to within (respectively) 10, 15, 20 and 30 yards of the hole and the separation is "what happens then"...so, I think you've got it right.
cheers vk
-
Recently I took a close look at wedge stats for the PGA Tour. 4 stats in particular 50-75 from fairway and rough and 75-100 yards from fairway and rough.
Tommy Fleetwood was the best from 50-75 yards from the fairway with an average of 4.5 feet but and this is a big but! In 41 rounds he had one shot from this distance! He had a further 2 shots from 50-75 from rough so in 41 rounds he had 3 shots from this distance. Most in this category had less then 10 shots.
Competence from this distance has very little bearing on success on the Tour.
The difference in skill levels is determined more by the long game then short game.
10-20 yards around the green is a skill separator but nowhere near as much as golfers think. 30-120 yards is not that relevant for elite players but very relevant for the average player. The average player has significantly more of these shots.
-
There's a difference between skill and scoring which ought to be recognised.
After a player has reached a certain level of skill then scoring is mostly a matter of how far the person is physically capable of hitting the ball. Other factors also play a part though, like course management, temperament etc.
atb
-
If I miss the green on a long par 4 I face the same short shot as I would if I missed the green attempting to reach a Par 5 in two.
Why do I feel like there's some 18th hole at a certain Philadelphia-area golf course agenda here? ;D
-
I am done with those who want to turn short fives into fours. For all but a small number of golfers they test the short game if well designed.
The short 5 and long 4 will usually leave the same sort of recovery so par isn't an issue. However, if it makes you feel better, why not have some of those half par holes as 4s from the medal tee and 5s from the daily tee? Cutting par will also reduce SSI and thus put pressure on lower handicap players without having to spend much money at all....new markers and cards and its sorted.
Ciao
-
Of course, 'for all but a small number of golfers' *every* hole ends up testing the short game -- whether it's well designed or not. The holes that *are* well-designed just make those tests/recoveries more interesting, attractive, varied, and fun than the ones that aren't. Indeed, I think this 2nd golden age has been built upon & characterized by not the great greens nor the enhanced strategies nor the natural aesthetic (though these get all the headlines), but instead by this Variety of Recovery Options (VORD).
-
Kyle,
We had an extended rain delay during the Club Championship and a few did try to lobby me about finishing with a “ strong par four”. Some think I have influence!
Watching the Scottish Open also had me observing that so many were near the green but results from there varied widely. It wasn’t only par fives but long par fours that were shortened dramatically.
-
The reason that I say the short shot reveals skill differences more than the long shot for most golfers is that you are closer to the hole and that’s where the action is.
-
...
The short shot separates skill levels more than the long shot.
Not according to Dr. Brodie who's analysis has shown high handicappers lose more strokes in the long game than in the short game.
He has reported that high handicappers have always been right to practice the long game while skilled players have always criticised them for doing so.
-
Garland,
I’m thinking of players at equal handicap showing skill difference as they get closer to the hole.
-
Mayday: There is a vast difference between playing a parkland course in the US and a links course in the UK. In the US there is a movement toward closely mowing the green surrounds putting a premium on chipping ability which requires the proper conditioning to allow for different options in playing the shot. My course is Bermuda fairways and green surrounds with Champion Bermuda greens and those greens are usually very firm and fast. This means that you need to be able to bump the ball on to the green but if the surrounds are soft or uneven this becomes an unlikely option. I think that at the very top level of the game putting is what separates players in any given week. Look at Jordan Spieth - his putting used to be great and now it is awful and so is his scoring/consistency. Tiger was always a fabulous putter which more than made up for any mistakes he might make.
-
Mayday: There is a vast difference between playing a parkland course in the US and a links course in the UK. In the US there is a movement toward closely mowing the green surrounds putting a premium on chipping ability which requires the proper conditioning to allow for different options in playing the shot. My course is Bermuda fairways and green surrounds with Champion Bermuda greens and those greens are usually very firm and fast. This means that you need to be able to bump the ball on to the green but if the surrounds are soft or uneven this becomes an unlikely option. I think that at the very top level of the game putting is what separates players in any given week. Look at Jordan Spieth - his putting used to be great and now it is awful and so is his scoring/consistency. Tiger was always a fabulous putter which more than made up for any mistakes he might make.
Indeed tiger was a great putter and converted a very amount of pressure putts, however his iron game was phenomenal as well.
-
The short shot separates skill levels more than the long shot.
No, it doesn't. The opposite is true. Others have noted this, so I won't get into depth.
I do think that the short par five are still viable, good, and interesting holes. Whether you call them a loooooong par four or a short par five, who cares? Everyone plays the same course.
-
I don’t seem to be making my point well.
I hear many people suggesting that short par fives are weak because you often end up with a short third shot.
I believe that the small possibility of getting home in two with the most likely outcome being a short shot is a good challenge.
I have observed over the years that a well designed short five challenges the short game well.
The closer to the hole you get the more skill seems to matter to the score you make.
-
The closer to the hole you get the more skill seems to matter to the score you make.
The opposite is true, though. The closer you get to the hole, the more the gap between players of different ability levels narrows. From 1" everyone is PGA Tour level. From 200 yards, only about 150 people are.
So if that's the basis for your entire point… you're going to struggle to get agreement amongst those who know the truth here. Short par fives are dominated by good iron players who can get the ball onto the green and closer to the hole so that they have easier shots.
-
Don't really care what you call the hole, just get the ball there as well as you can.
Could you get the ball to 18 in two at Golspie Mayday? If not, are you going to write their board and tell them they really need to start calling it a par 5. How about Foxy? RD need to start calling it a par 5?
-
In the four skills levels I roughly perceive...
Pro to 2 HCP
3 - 9 HCP
10-18 HCP
18+ HCP...
In my witness, each group hits it nearly the same to within (respectively) 10, 15, 20 and 30 yards of the hole and the separation is "what happens then"...so, I think you've got it right.
cheers vk
Either I don't understand what you mean, or you need to get out more. There is no way you can divide golfers into handicap ranges and expect any kind of consistency in talent in any one of those ranges.
-
In the four skills levels I roughly perceive...
Pro to 2 HCP
3 - 9 HCP
10-18 HCP
18+ HCP...
In my witness, each group hits it nearly the same to within (respectively) 10, 15, 20 and 30 yards of the hole and the separation is "what happens then"...so, I think you've got it right.
cheers vk
Either I don't understand what you mean, or you need to get out more. There is no way you can divide golfers into handicap ranges and expect any kind of consistency in talent in any one of those ranges.
Save the cheek... I didn't invite it and your button-pressing has long been tiresome...As for the fact of that sarcastic preamble, I'll state that I have some 4000 rounds and 37 years under my belt, serving, observing and playing the game for every conceivable type of golfer under every competitive and recreational mode of play devised... from US Open sectionals to the Lions and Lambs 9-holers. I've been out plenty, numbnuts
For those besides GB, who desire an honest clarification I intended a "rough, subjective" guide corresponding to the scoring of those groups...
Pros (+5/6) - to 2s break course par, but don't always...
3- 9 sometimes threaten par, often break 80, but don't always...
10-18 are pleased when the break 80 and feel rotten when they go over 90.
18+ are often defined by breaking 90.
My witness reveals that within those very rough subjective groups, the players in the group end up with the same degree of miss, and what segregates them within their group is how proficient and versatile their short game is.
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
-
In the four skills levels I roughly perceive...
Pro to 2 HCP
3 - 9 HCP
10-18 HCP
18+ HCP...
In my witness, each group hits it nearly the same to within (respectively) 10, 15, 20 and 30 yards of the hole and the separation is "what happens then"...so, I think you've got it right.
cheers vk
Either I don't understand what you mean, or you need to get out more. There is no way you can divide golfers into handicap ranges and expect any kind of consistency in talent in any one of those ranges.
Save the cheek... I didn't invite it and your button-pressing has long been tiresome...As for the fact of that sarcastic preamble, I'll state that I have some 4000 rounds and 37 years under my belt, serving, observing and playing the game for every conceivable type of golfer under every competitive and recreational mode of play devised... from US Open sectionals to the Lions and Lambs 9-holers. I've been out plenty, numbnuts
For those besides GB, who desire an honest clarification I intended a "rough, subjective" guide corresponding to the scoring of those groups...
Pros (+5/6) - to 2s break course par, but don't always...
3- 9 sometimes threaten par, often break 80, but don't always...
10-18 are pleased when the break 80 and feel rotten when they go over 90.
18+ are often defined by breaking 90.
My witness reveals that within those very rough subjective groups, the players in the group end up with the same degree of miss, and what segregates them within their group is how proficient and versatile their short game is.
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
Your last paragraph says it better than my weak efforts.
-
The closer to the hole you get the more skill seems to matter to the score you make.
The opposite is true, though. The closer you get to the hole, the more the gap between players of different ability levels narrows. From 1" everyone is PGA Tour level. From 200 yards, only about 150 people are.
So if that's the basis for your entire point… you're going to struggle to get agreement amongst those who know the truth here. Short par fives are dominated by good iron players who can get the ball onto the green and closer to the hole so that they have easier shots.
Hell must of frozen over, but I agree 100% with Erik on this. ;)
The closer to the hole us lesser players get, the chances of going far offline are greatly reduced. Even a bad putt for high cappers may only be 10 feet past the hole instead of 30-40 yards offline with a driver or long iron.
I'm only 1 data point, but the closer I get to the hole in general the better I get....a putting is the best part of my game.
-
The closer to the hole you get the more skill seems to matter to the score you make.
The opposite is true, though. The closer you get to the hole, the more the gap between players of different ability levels narrows. From 1" everyone is PGA Tour level. From 200 yards, only about 150 people are.
So if that's the basis for your entire point… you're going to struggle to get agreement amongst those who know the truth here. Short par fives are dominated by good iron players who can get the ball onto the green and closer to the hole so that they have easier shots.
Hell must of frozen over, but I agree 100% with Erik on this. ;)
The closer to the hole us lesser players get, the chances of going far offline are greatly reduced. Even a bad putt for high cappers may only be 10 feet past the hole instead of 30-40 yards offline with a driver or long iron.
I'm only 1 data point, but the closer I get to the hole in general the better I get....a putting is the best part of my game.
However KB, (as Hell looks for anti-freeze ;) ) you and EB are considering this in a vacuum (as to some comparable measurement of miss) when there IS a finite, real goal here...holing out (or to answer EB's post, coming to rest an inch from the hole)...I don't doubt that I'm much closer to a tour pro 30 feet from the cup than I am from 200 yards, but back at 200 yards there's a lot more than can happen in the space of 200 yards towards the fundamental challenge of holing out at the lowest number...I doubt you're going to lose a ball or incur a penalty from 30 feet (10 yards), but as you put an average golfer and a professional 30 feet from the hole (on greens, in bunkers, in rough) and the pros get down in an average of 1.7, 1.6, strokes and the average man gets his 2.3s, 2.4s from 30 feet...the point MM poses and I partially endorse is cast in better relief.
cheers vk
-
VK,
It sounds like you really just proved the point here. At 200 yards out i'm probably 1.5 strokes worse than a Tour Pro ....but at 30 feet i'm closer to .5 stroke. (1.7 to 2.2). This is the entire gist of the argument. The closer you get to the hole the less impactful the mistakes are.
-
...
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
I would suggest that Tom Doak's concept for the Olympic course considers the "extra-quality" of certain players short games. Since the land had few if any features to use in a minimalist design, then the placement of tees and greens was at the designers choosing. He proposed a set of holes with an equal gradation in length between the holes when sorted shortest to longest. Presumably this would get the most even distribution amongst all golfers of holes where they have an opportunity to shine in the short game.
When you start discussing whether it should be a par 4 or par 5, I have to wonder "par 4 for who?" and "par 5 for who?".
-
Someone might have already mentioned this but a golfer who shoots around 90 hits on average around 2 or 3 greens a round so their short game is tested on almost every hole regardless of what the par is. Someone shooting 80 only hits 6 or 7 so the same goes here! I am not sure what Mike is getting at??
-
...
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
I would suggest that Tom Doak's concept for the Olympic course considers the "extra-quality" of certain players short games. Since the land had few if any features to use in a minimalist design, then the placement of tees and greens was at the designers choosing. He proposed a set of holes with an equal gradation in length between the holes when sorted shortest to longest. Presumably this would get the most even distribution amongst all golfers of holes where they have an opportunity to shine in the short game.
When you start discussing whether it should be a par 4 or par 5, I have to wonder "par 4 for who?" and "par 5 for who?".
Thats very reasonable...
-
Either I don't understand what you mean, or you need to get out more. There is no way you can divide golfers into handicap ranges and expect any kind of consistency in talent in any one of those ranges.
Save the cheek... I didn't invite it and your button-pressing has long been tiresome...As for the fact of that sarcastic preamble, I'll state that I have some 4000 rounds and 37 years under my belt, serving, observing and playing the game for every conceivable type of golfer under every competitive and recreational mode of play devised... from US Open sectionals to the Lions and Lambs 9-holers. I've been out plenty, numbnuts
For those besides GB, who desire an honest clarification I intended a "rough, subjective" guide corresponding to the scoring of those groups...
Pros (+5/6) - to 2s break course par, but don't always...
3- 9 sometimes threaten par, often break 80, but don't always...
10-18 are pleased when the break 80 and feel rotten when they go over 90.
18+ are often defined by breaking 90.
My witness reveals that within those very rough subjective groups, the players in the group end up with the same degree of miss, and what segregates them within their group is how proficient and versatile their short game is.
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
I'm sorry if I sound cheeky to you. If I were to say the same thing to you in person, I'm pretty sure you would find no offense to it as I believe the context of a good natured discussion would override the perception of cheekiness.
I continually fail to temper my posts in the manner necessary to account for the lack of a person to person meeting where more comes in to play. With some people I just want to be blunt, but that would not be the case with you.
But, forgive me if I say that I find your statements on this matter to be contrary to mathematics, statistics, and logic.
You are assigning arbitrary division points to the gradation scale of the handicap system that segregates players into groups that would not correspond to real life as there is a great diverse set of skills that go into determining the numbers in the handicap system. As was seen on another thread, given the Steady Eddys and Wild Willys of the handicap system, you seem to me to be ignoring at a minimum of 20% of all golfers in your "rough subjective" analysis.
My point about Variance seems to be something that they though about, but never got around to dealing with:
8. Future Research: The Player Variability Problem[/size]The HRT has shown that 80% of all bogey golfers fit the model within one stroke. However, two distinct types of golfers fall outside of these limits. These types have been labeled "Steady Eddy" and "Wild Willy." Steady Eddy represents 12% of all golfers and he is a very straight, but short ball striker who has an outstanding short game. When taken from a short course to a long course, his score increase8 greater than the model would show, thus he is under-handicapped at a high Slope course. Conversely, Wild Willy is a long-hitter, but is inaccurate. Representing 8% of bogey golfers, this type can be over- handicapped on a long open course, but under-handicapped on any very tight and punitive course.
Furthermore, it seems to me that simply the vast dispersion of age and physical abilities of golfers would render your arbitrary assignment of partitions to the handicap system somewhat meaningless.
Finally, as I posted earlier, Dr. Brodie has shown that the "strokes gained" statistic he originated shows more strokes are lost in the long game than in the short game by high handicappers.
-
Either I don't understand what you mean, or you need to get out more. There is no way you can divide golfers into handicap ranges and expect any kind of consistency in talent in any one of those ranges.
Save the cheek... I didn't invite it and your button-pressing has long been tiresome...As for the fact of that sarcastic preamble, I'll state that I have some 4000 rounds and 37 years under my belt, serving, observing and playing the game for every conceivable type of golfer under every competitive and recreational mode of play devised... from US Open sectionals to the Lions and Lambs 9-holers. I've been out plenty, numbnuts
For those besides GB, who desire an honest clarification I intended a "rough, subjective" guide corresponding to the scoring of those groups...
Pros (+5/6) - to 2s break course par, but don't always...
3- 9 sometimes threaten par, often break 80, but don't always...
10-18 are pleased when the break 80 and feel rotten when they go over 90.
18+ are often defined by breaking 90.
My witness reveals that within those very rough subjective groups, the players in the group end up with the same degree of miss, and what segregates them within their group is how proficient and versatile their short game is.
I'm not fully down with the tenets of MMs original post intentions regarding "Short Par 5s," but I understand his point, that the short game (including putting) reveals that "extra-quality" in a player on a given day, round, era, and is something to consider in course design theory and application.
cheers vk
I'm sorry if I sound cheeky to you. If I were to say the same thing to you in person, I'm pretty sure you would find no offense to it as I believe the context of a good natured discussion would override the perception of cheekiness.
I continually fail to temper my posts in the manner necessary to account for the lack of a person to person meeting where more comes in to play. With some people I just want to be blunt, but that would not be the case with you.
But, forgive me if I say that I find your statements on this matter to be contrary to mathematics, statistics, and logic.
You are assigning arbitrary division points to the gradation scale of the handicap system that segregates players into groups that would not correspond to real life as there is a great diverse set of skills that go into determining the numbers in the handicap system. As was seen on another thread, given the Steady Eddys and Wild Willys of the handicap system, you seem to me to be ignoring at a minimum of 20% of all golfers in your "rough subjective" analysis.
My point about Variance seems to be something that they though about, but never got around to dealing with:
8. Future Research: The Player Variability ProblemThe HRT has shown that 80% of all bogey golfers fit the model within one stroke. However, two distinct types of golfers fall outside of these limits. These types have been labeled "Steady Eddy" and "Wild Willy." Steady Eddy represents 12% of all golfers and he is a very straight, but short ball striker who has an outstanding short game. When taken from a short course to a long course, his score increase8 greater than the model would show, thus he is under-handicapped at a high Slope course. Conversely, Wild Willy is a long-hitter, but is inaccurate. Representing 8% of bogey golfers, this type can be over- handicapped on a long open course, but under-handicapped on any very tight and punitive course.
Furthermore, it seems to me that simply the vast dispersion of age and physical abilities of golfers would render your arbitrary assignment of partitions to the handicap system somewhat meaningless.
Finally, as I posted earlier, Dr. Brodie has shown that the "strokes gained" statistic he originated shows more strokes are lost in the long game than in the short game by high handicappers.
Understood on all GB and for what its worth to the discussion, I fully admit the rough eyeball, non-empirical nature of my contribution which is borne of extensive experience... and more clarification I was talking about skill dispersions within those rough groups, not between a pro and a 10 or an 18+...
***There's a sandbagger/hustler 16 HCP I know (whom I love despite these flaws and his personal friendship with Trump) and when he pulls off a finessed lob or hybrid from the second cut or a spinning bunker shot with bite... he forever says under his breath to me "You don't know many 16s with that shot do you?"
cheers vk
-
My witness reveals that within those very rough subjective groups, the players in the group end up with the same degree of miss, and what segregates them within their group is how proficient and versatile their short game is.
That's not how it is. I appreciate that you're arguing against the only person on my Ignore list, but… he's right on this one. Higher handicappers are more "separated" by their full swings (drives, approach shots) than by their short game and/or putting. The latter two have the less "separation."
However KB, (as Hell looks for anti-freeze ;) ) you and EB are considering this in a vacuum (as to some comparable measurement of miss) when there IS a finite, real goal here...holing out (or to answer EB's post, coming to rest an inch from the hole)...I don't doubt that I'm much closer to a tour pro 30 feet from the cup than I am from 200 yards, but back at 200 yards there's a lot more than can happen in the space of 200 yards towards the fundamental challenge of holing out at the lowest number...I doubt you're going to lose a ball or incur a penalty from 30 feet (10 yards), but as you put an average golfer and a professional 30 feet from the hole (on greens, in bunkers, in rough) and the pros get down in an average of 1.7, 1.6, strokes and the average man gets his 2.3s, 2.4s from 30 feet...the point MM poses and I partially endorse is cast in better relief.
Those stats aren't accurate.
PGA Tour players average 2.0 putts from 33'. From 8', they average 1.5 putts. You have them averaging 1.6 from 30' - that's just not close.
Furthermore, again, the average player doesn't average 2.4 from 30'. They likewise average about 2.1. Depending on who you consider "average."
From 200 yards… a PGA Tour pro averages 3.19 strokes or so (from the fairway). An average golfer likely averages over 4.0. More separation.