Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Eric LeFante on July 17, 2018, 11:42:07 AM
-
A cornerstone to GCA is risk vs reward. The 8th hole at Shinnecock is a good example; it’s about 290 yards to carry the bunkers on the left from the back tee. If a player is able to do this, he will be rewarded with a wedge approach AND a better angle to approach the green vs the right side of the fairway.
http://www.usopen.com/course/8.html (http://www.usopen.com/course/8.html)
Think about how Brooks Koepka and Ian Poulter played this hole; Koepka hit driver down the left and Poulter had to go down the right side of the fairway because he couldn't carry the left bunkers.
Did either player really have a decision to make on the tee? Koepka can carry the left bunkers, wants a wedge approach shot, and wants the best angle to get his second shot close. Poulter cannot carry the left bunkers so he needs to go down the right side of the fairway.
The architect can’t change the fact that Koepka can outdrive Poulter by 30+ yards, but should the architect also give Koepka the better angle?
What if the better angle was from the right side of the fairway? Now Koepka has a decision to make; lay up down the right, have a longer shot into the green but a better angle, or hit driver down the left, have a wedge in, but have the less desirable angle.
Long hitters can have a shorter approach shot on most par 4s and par 5s; isn’t that enough of an advantage? Should architects give them a better angle as well?
-
In my opinion, to place a 300+ yard shot into a 10-15 yard area is a tremendous feat worthy of the advantage it delivers in this case.
That said, I noticed far fewer guys than I thought challenging that area off the 8th tee. Don’t have an answer for why (and my sample size was pretty small, having not seen a ton of the coverage), but this particular hole really can divide.
Poulter’s triple in Rd2 or 3 was evidence of the difficult approach from the right side.
-
Eric,
I've often wondered myself why this mechanism isn't used more.
Drive it further, have a shorter approach with a worse angle and have to fly a nasty bunker or green slopes working against you.
or
Lay it back, with a longer approach, and a much better angle.
-
Because the term is Risk-Reward...not Risk-Crap Sandwich...
Haha
-
Jim,
Isn't having a shorter club in your hand a reward in and of itself? Approach from further out with a 5 iron or closer in with an 8....
-
Eric: the answer to your question is yes, on many holes, partly for the reason you cited.
The problem is that most designers are good players, and in rewarding what they consider to be a good shot - THEIR OWN good shot - they punish shorter hitters.
The TOUR compounds this in their setups. If Tiger can carry the bunker but Zach Johnson can't, no problem, Tiger is being rewarded for his skill. But if there's wind and Tiger can't carry the bunker, they will often move the tee up, and reward Tiger and punish Zach again!
Jim S (a good player!) agrees with this approach, but qualifies it that the player is making a long carry to a small area. I just think rewarding the guy who can hit to a tight spot is more equitable than rewarding the guy who can bomb it over all the trouble.
-
Jim - re the 'tremendous feat'. It is, and the longer hitter should have an advantage. But:
Read the other day about a recent club test -- the machine/iron byron had a persimmon driver hit the ball 5-8ths of an inch off the sweet spot, and then had the latest 460 cc driver hit them 5-8ths of an inch off the sweetspot. Average distance loss with the modern driver? 6 yards. Average distance loss with the persimmon? 49 yards.
Once upon a time, the longest hitters - Norman, Nicklaus etc -- really *earned* their advantage; and the risks they took for the reward they gained were *significant*. Today not so much.
Peter
-
Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?
-
Jim - re the 'tremendous feat'. It is, and the longer hitter should have an advantage. But:
Read the other day about a recent club test -- the machine/iron byron had a persimmon driver hit the ball 5-8ths of an inch off the sweet spot, and then had the latest 460 cc driver hit them 5-8ths of an inch off the sweetspot. Average distance loss with the modern driver? 6 yards. Average distance loss with the persimmon? 49 yards.
Once upon a time, the longest hitters - Norman, Nicklaus etc -- really *earned* their advantage; and the risks they took for the reward they gained were *significant*. Today not so much.
Peter
Great point Peter
-
The issue with the 8th at Shinneock is ONLY the long hitters can hit to the left side of the fairway and get the best angle.
A hole like the Road hole at St. Andrews rewards anyone (not only long hitters) who takes a risk by playing to the right side of the fairway with a better angle to the green.
Depending on the wind, 6 at Carnoustie will reward anyone who hits their tee shot down the left side. I think the carry over the two bunkers in the fairway is only 270 so I'm worried that if there is a light breeze into the players, DJ can still clear both bunkers without having to take on the OB and ZJ needs to the play the hole the way it was designed.
-
Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?
This was what I was going to respond with.
A cornerstone of GCA seems to be undulating greens. But, that gives an unfair advantage to good putters. Let's even it out.
A cornerstone of GCA is holes that move in all directions with wind affecting holes differently. But, that gives an unfair advantage to guys that can really work the ball versus calls that can only hit one way.
Hitting it long is an advantage.
Having good touch is an advantage.
Having the ability to work the ball is an advantage.
We could go on and on.
If you can put multiple skills together, you have a larger advantage.
-
Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?
This was what I was going to respond with.
A cornerstone of GCA seems to be undulating greens. But, that gives an unfair advantage to good putters. Let's even it out.
A cornerstone of GCA is holes that move in all directions with wind affecting holes differently. But, that gives an unfair advantage to guys that can really work the ball versus calls that can only hit one way.
Hitting it long is an advantage.
Having good touch is an advantage.
Having the ability to work the ball is an advantage.
We could go on and on.
If you can put multiple skills together, you have a larger advantage.
But Steve, should architects GIVE long hitters an additional advantage by allowing them to get an angle that short hitters cannot get to?
-
Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?
This was what I was going to respond with.
A cornerstone of GCA seems to be undulating greens. But, that gives an unfair advantage to good putters. Let's even it out.
A cornerstone of GCA is holes that move in all directions with wind affecting holes differently. But, that gives an unfair advantage to guys that can really work the ball versus calls that can only hit one way.
Hitting it long is an advantage.
Having good touch is an advantage.
Having the ability to work the ball is an advantage.
We could go on and on.
If you can put multiple skills together, you have a larger advantage.
But Steve, should architects GIVE long hitters an additional advantage by allowing them to get an angle that short hitters cannot get to?
Isn't that also happening with the other skill sets I mentioned? The green has some slope in it protected by a hazard and the better putter also hits his irons better so he can access the hole location better.
I think everyone is making the assumption that because you hit it longer you get an additional advantage by hitting a wedge. For a long time, DJ could blow it by everyone but he couldn't take advantage of it as he should because he wasn't the greatest wedge player in the world.
Further, I remember running some stats in college (long before all the really sophisticated stats coming out of PGA Tour data and its analysis) and there really wasn't much correlation between any one stat and wins or money won. So, being able to hit long is advantage, but it is no more of an advantage than any other skill set.
-
I agree that every skill is needed, but distance seems to correlate the most with success on tour.
In all, 43 players on the PGA Tour in 2017 averaged 300 yards or more off the tee, and their average official prize money was $2,546,061. The other 147 players who had official stats last season had a combined average prize money of $1,362,608.
https://golfweek.com/2018/04/22/golf-by-the-numbers-distance-off-tee-pays-dividends/ (https://golfweek.com/2018/04/22/golf-by-the-numbers-distance-off-tee-pays-dividends/)
-
A cornerstone to GCA is risk vs reward. The 8th hole at Shinnecock is a good example; it’s about 290 yards to carry the bunkers on the left from the back tee. If a player is able to do this, he will be rewarded with a wedge approach AND a better angle to approach the green vs the right side of the fairway.
http://www.usopen.com/course/8.html (http://www.usopen.com/course/8.html)
Think about how Brooks Koepka and Ian Poulter played this hole; Koepka hit driver down the left and Poulter had to go down the right side of the fairway because he couldn't carry the left bunkers.
Did either player really have a decision to make on the tee? Koepka can carry the left bunkers, wants a wedge approach shot, and wants the best angle to get his second shot close. Poulter cannot carry the left bunkers so he needs to go down the right side of the fairway.
The architect can’t change the fact that Koepka can outdrive Poulter by 30+ yards, but should the architect also give Koepka the better angle?
What if the better angle was from the right side of the fairway? Now Koepka has a decision to make; lay up down the right, have a longer shot into the green but a better angle, or hit driver down the left, have a wedge in, but have the less desirable angle.
Long hitters can have a shorter approach shot on most par 4s and par 5s; isn’t that enough of an advantage? Should architects give them a better angle as well?
The plot thickens.........Ian Poulter and Brooks Koepka are playing together tomorrow in the 1st (and then 2nd) round of The Open at Carnoustie.
Atb
-
Steve,
Players that can consistently work the ball both ways are more skilled ball strikers than players that can only work the ball one way.
Greens with undulation are more interesting than flat greens.
If you don't believe those two statements then you really can argue anything you would like.
If a player can move the ball both ways and is a good putter he SHOULD have an advantage over a player who can only move the ball in one direction and is a bad putter because he is a better golfer.
If a player can hit the ball a long way, does that mean he is a better golfer than a short hitter? I don't believe so. No matter how much Zach Johnson works out, he will never be a long hitter.
Should an architect penalize ZJ (8th hole at Shinnecock) by forcing him to hit his tee shot to the right side of the fairway, which means he has a more difficult angle into the green than a long hitter who hits it down the left?
-
Every once in awhile, a hole like the 8th at Shinny is OK in competition. No one would want a whole course full of that kind of sway.
-
Isn’t what Eric is talking about referred to as a reverse dogleg? Perry Maxwell built many, many of these where the golfer was rewarded with the preferred angle by playing to the outside of the dogleg.
-
I've noticed Pete Dye often gives golfer the choice. Go for the long drive but the bad angle, or the shorter drive with the better angle.
-
Ross courses are replete with the short or long option off the tee. Except in the case of Ross it is often playing to the top of hills or trying to reach the bottom over the hill. Of course, back in the day I expect the issue was about reaching the top of the hill or not. I think once equipment made tee shot placement an option the holes became better. Now, its too easy for too mnay people to blow drives over hills. I guess my point is we need to be careful about archie intentions because unless we know a course quite well over a long period of time, its east to draw the wrong conclusion about archie intention.
Ciao
-
Steve,
Players that can consistently work the ball both ways are more skilled ball strikers than players that can only work the ball one way.
Greens with undulation are more interesting than flat greens.
If you don't believe those two statements then you really can argue anything you would like.
If a player can move the ball both ways and is a good putter he SHOULD have an advantage over a player who can only move the ball in one direction and is a bad putter because he is a better golfer.
If a player can hit the ball a long way, does that mean he is a better golfer than a short hitter? I don't believe so. No matter how much Zach Johnson works out, he will never be a long hitter.
Should an architect penalize ZJ (8th hole at Shinnecock) by forcing him to hit his tee shot to the right side of the fairway, which means he has a more difficult angle into the green than a long hitter who hits it down the left?
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Working the ball both ways is a skill. Putting is a skill. But, so is hitting long AND straight. If people aren't believing that is a skill worth rewarding on some risk-reward holes go check out some college golf or high level amateur events. There are plenty of guys that can hit it long, but not all of them hit it long enough to keep it where they need. Just look at what has happened to one Eldrick Woods. He can still hit it long, but for years now he has had a really hard time keeping the driver in play with any consistency.
-
Jim - re the 'tremendous feat'. It is, and the longer hitter should have an advantage. But:
Read the other day about a recent club test -- the machine/iron byron had a persimmon driver hit the ball 5-8ths of an inch off the sweet spot, and then had the latest 460 cc driver hit them 5-8ths of an inch off the sweetspot. Average distance loss with the modern driver? 6 yards. Average distance loss with the persimmon? 49 yards.
Once upon a time, the longest hitters - Norman, Nicklaus etc -- really *earned* their advantage; and the risks they took for the reward they gained were *significant*. Today not so much.
Peter
Peter, this is a strange test, and post. I doubt any of the guys on Tour miss the sweet spot by 5/8 of an inch twice per week...but if they do, it’s the Zach Johnson and Ian Poulter type ball strikers.
While Dustin Johnson’s skill in hitting the ball is certainly different than Norman’s, and the equipment enables it to be, he has managed to separate himself from the field just as significantly in my opinion.
-
Jim - there's much I don't know, including the likelihood/frequency of such mishits and who today is the most naturally talented/gifted driver. (They all hit it so far and straight, but my eyes say it's Rory.)
I mentioned the test (besides the lens it provided on technological change) because it brought this to mind:
A great putter, today, would have just as much of an advantage at Augusta as Ben Crenshaw did 30 years ago.
A great game manager/strategist like Tiger in his prime has as much of an advantage now as Hogan and Nicklaus had in their days.
A great short game magician and bunker/recovery specialist has as much of an advantage at The Open today as Seve and Trevino had in their day.
BUT -- in terms of driving the ball, the moden technology 'flattens the curve' and mitigates the differences in natural talent and ability more than ever (or so it seems to me). Almost everyone back in the late persimmon era recognized Norman as the best driver -- but his advantage disappeared virtually overnight with the advent of titanium.
I don't know who today is the best/most talented driver in golf - but to get back to Eric's original question, it's ironic that whoever that is he has *less* of an advantage over everyone else than ever before. They *all* hit it long and straight...except for the poor guys who don't
Peter
-
I am a little torn on this one. I think hitting it longer should absolutely be an advantage. I don't have a particular problem with it being a big advantage. That said, I like the risk-reward concept a lot. To my mind that means that you can hit it short and hit to a wide fairway and be assured of being in the short grass, but you get a worse angle and/or a longer shot into the green. Or you can pound driver into a narrower space (the risk) and get the shorter shot from a better angle (the reward). My impression of 8 at Shinnecock was the longer shot was both wider and gave the better angle, so it's more like reward-reward, not risk-reward.
-
Michael, the right side of the eigth fairway is definitely not the preferred angle. Probably the greatest disparity on the course with respect to gaining an advantage based on the side of the fairway.
Peter, Rory is probably correct...and your last sentence says it all for me.
I think the top players have further distances themselves from you and I but don’t think Ian Poulter is any closer to Rory (off the tee) than whomever might be a relatively poor ball striker might have been to Norman in 1986. Not sure how to study/debate it, but Rory has periods that are just astonishing from the tee.
In truth, with golf, I always think there’s more to it. Driving it 330 and missing the green with a wedge is certainly not as valuable as hitting it 280 and hitting a 6 iron 15 feet below the hole. I find it really difficult to relate to Mark Brodie’s statistics. Smarter people than I say they’re sound so I’ll defer...I just think if you could put Ian Poulters demeanor in Rory McIlroys Head you’d have Tiger Woods...and that demeanor is unmeasurable.
-
With all due respect, long (and accurate) hitters will ALWAYS have an advantage. They might not be able to putt or have no short game but that is a different story. Length and accuracy are a huge advantage and frankly there is little to nothing an architect can do about it without tricking up the golf course or setting it up so conditions neutralize this skill.
I was playing in a member guest event at Spring Creek Ranch in Memphis TN. The 16th hole is about 375 yards and plays like an elbow hole around a lake to a green tucked on the other side. Depending on the hole location, a shorter drive (maybe 210-230 yards) along the lake can leave a better angle into the green. A long and accurate drive (maybe 270-290 yards) to the corner of the elbow can leave a tougher angle but a gap wedge. I was playing the hole with a kid who played college golf at Arkansas. He stood on the tee trying to decide whether to hit driver or three wood - only he wasn’t playing to the elbow, he was trying to drive the green (320 yards of carry over the lake). He hit driver and flew it to the back edge of the green - probably too much club :o :o Angles didn’t mean a thing to this kid on the golf course and there was little one could do to try to defend against where he could hit the golf ball so why try!
The USGA tried to neutralize the long hitter at Merion by narrowing all the fairways and forcing everyone to play to the same areas off the tee. It was a huge mistake in my opinion as it took the risk/reward out of play on many of the holes especially on most all of the shorter par fours.
Length coupled with accuracy is always going to be an advantage and there is nothing you can do about it on most golf holes that I have seen. What are we going to do, eliminate all straight holes, all elbow holes, all dogleg holes, … What about so called “par fives”? Unless the architect is going to force everyone to play from the same spots by dictating all play with rough, water, other hazards, …, length and accuracy will always be a big advantage.
-
Length and accuracy should always be rewarded.
I think architects can design holes that allows long hitters AND short hitters to hit to a particular side of the fairway to get the best angle. I also think holes can be designed that can really make long hitters think: do I want a longer approach shot from a great angle or a shorter approach shot from a not so great angle?
I don't think it's great architecture to put an artificial hazard in play that forces driver out of the long hitters hand. Natural hazards sometimes force players to lay up and that's okay (8th hole Pebble Beach). It is great architecture when a long hitter has to make a decision and some choose to hit driver and take on more risk and some choose the safer option off the tee. As Michael pointed out, risk-reward is the key, not reward-reward.
-
I don't think anybody is arguing length and accuracy shouldn't be rewarded. The question is to what degree? I spose thats like asking how long is a piece of string...the answer to many architectural questions. From my perspective, regardless of all else, I want balance of features, green locations/styles, hole lengths, angles, open vs restricted etc etc. But truthfully, if the greens are good and interesting, the land interesting, drainage and recoveries on offer, its a damn good start which may be all that is required in my price range.
Ciao
-
I think the ultimate goal of the PGA Tour should be to have a balance of players in the top 30 or so. But given the stat I posted earlier on this thread, they sure aren't getting it...
-
Kalen,
Couldn't possibly disagree with you more! That is why great courses like Merion get set up the way the were for the US Open - the USGA trying to balance the playing field and taking 3W's and Drivers out of most golfers hands.
I was in Hawaii last year talking to a colleague who is a surfer. We were on the Big Island and he was going over to Oahu to surf. He said the waves in the one area were reaching 20+ feet in height. However, he said he couldn't surf in that spot because at that height if you can't hold your breath for at least 4 minutes you could drown. If you want to surf with the big boys, there are certain skill sets you need to have. The PGA Tour is no different and whether we like it or not, unfortunately 300+ yard drives with accuracy is one of those skill sets that is needed.
Mark
-
Kalen,
Couldn't possibly disagree with you more! That is why great courses like Merion get set up the way the were for the US Open - the USGA trying to balance the playing field and taking 3W's and Drivers out of most golfers hands.
I was in Hawaii last year talking to a colleague who is a surfer. We were on the Big Island and he was going over to Oahu to surf. He said the waves in the one area were reaching 20+ feet in height. However, he said he couldn't surf in that spot because at that height if you can't hold your breath for at least 4 minutes you could drown. If you want to surf with the big boys, there are certain skill sets you need to have. The PGA Tour is no different and whether we like it or not, unfortunately 300+ yard drives with accuracy is one of those skill sets that is needed.
Mark
Zach Johnson has $44 million in career earnings and major wins at Augusta and St. Andrews, two courses that favor long hitters, that prove 300+ yard drives are not NEEDED!
-
Mark,
I think we're mixing things up here a bit. Of course there are no short hitters on tour. Even the shortest guy is long compared to the average weekend warrior.... but its about how players on tour stack up against each other.
As Eric pointed out, shorter guys on Tour can have great success, its just they don't do it anywhere near as much.
-
Karen/Eric,
There are always exceptions and one skill set can “help” make up for another. But like Kalen said, there are NO short hitters on tour. Even Zach can hit it out there 300+ yards.
Just like in surfing, you don’t always need to hold your breath for 4+ minutes and those who can only hold it for 3 might get by some of the time but they also die more often.
-
Karen/Eric,
There are always exceptions and one skill set can “help” make up for another. But like Kalen said, there are NO short hitters on tour. Even Zach can hit it out there 300+ yards.
Just like in surfing, you don’t always need to hold your breath for 4+ minutes and those who can only hold it for 3 might get by some of the time but they also die more often.
Mark,
If we're using 300 as the benchmark, then that doesn't really hold. The average tour drive is 295 and only roughly 25% of players average over 300.
My complaint is that setups too often cater to this 25%, instead of everyone.
P.S. Zach averages 290 and is currently 146th...
-
Kalen,
All I am saying is that long and accurate is a huge advantage. If someone comes on tour who can hit it accurately 400 yards they are going to have a huge advantage on virtually any golf course. But who cares, you can’t design for those few and if you try you will likely ruin things for the “average” golfer - how ever you define that these days.
Mark
-
Mark,
Fully agreed. When guys like Rory are on, there is nothing anyone can do. But this thread really hasn't been about outliers, as they will always exist. Its a question of what setups are benefiting what type of players?
Tigers dad was absolutely correct years ago when he said lengthening ANGC will only serve to benefit longer players (including Tiger) even more, and he was correct. Since Tigers win in 97, only a handful of players like Weir and Zach have won since then....most of the rest have all been long bombers...Bubba twice, Phil twice, Tiger 3 additional times, Carbrera, Scott, Sergio, etc
-
Kalen,
The title of this thread is "Do long hitters have too much of an advantage?" Long is a relative term but the answer is that there is a huge advantage to be able to hit the golf ball on long way (and accurate) on almost any golf course. And I will go further and say that any golf course that doesn't favor a long and accurate hitter has major flaws (chip and putts excluded ;) ). I can't think of a single golf course that I have played where it is better to be short and accurate than long and accurate. Granted this doesn't mean that every hole on the golf course should favor an accurate power player but as I tried to explain in my earlier example, a 375 yard hole that for most of us is full of strategy, encourages thinking off the tee as to the correct line of play and the right distance off the tee,... is only a 3W or a Driver over everything directly to the green for the long accurate player. What should the architect do, put a net up so going for the green is not an option ???
For some players there is little defense and time should not be wasted on designing for them. Give them some back tees (if the club/course wants to spend the money) and leave it at that.
Mark
-
I'd say yes. Being long and offline seems to be better than being short and accurate.
The lob wedge (and the golf ball) plays a large part in this too. With 60+ degree wedges, players can get so much spin being offline from the tee isn't a problem. We'll see this at Carnoustie this week. In 1999 balls took three bounces on the green before there was any spin. Now - on the driest course in decades - they'll stop and spin back. So angles and accuracy off the tee tend to matter a lot less.
-
I think the ultimate goal of the PGA Tour should be to have a balance of players in the top 30 or so. But given the stat I posted earlier on this thread, they sure aren't getting it...
Kalen,I have two questions about the article you linked.
First, do you think the overall conclusion of the article is in line with the quote you provided?
And secondly, is there anything different in 2018 than there was in 1998 or 1978 or 1958 in this regard? Haven't long hitters ALWAYS enjoyed an advantage? More to the point, why shouldn't they? Bobby Jones was one of the really long hitters of his day. Palmer was known, in his heyday, as a great driver. Nicklaus and Woods are the case studies for distance winning. This has never NOT been true.
Mark Broadie's research shows pretty conclusively the long drivers on Tour are also, for the most part, relatively straight as well; "long but wild" is largely a myth. (It's important to note that he distinguishes between missing the fairway a little and missing by a lot.) You never show up on Tour, or at least don't stay for long, if you aren't long enough AND accurate enough; distance alone doesn't get it done.
Actually, the stat that correlates most closely to money won on Tour, as well as excellence at all levels of golf, is proximity of approach, and it is stating the obvious to say that a long hitter who is reasonably accurate is going to be hitting shorter clubs into greens and likely hitting it closer. So the correlation between distance and money is MUCH greater than the correlation between accuracy and money.
-
I saw that two bombers, Dustin Johnson and Ian Poulter (???) both hit their tee shots into the green side burn 457 yards away during a practice round! Good thing that hazard was there 😉
-
Mark Broadie's research shows pretty conclusively the long drivers on Tour are also, for the most part, relatively straight as well; "long but wild" is largely a myth. (It's important to note that he distinguishes between missing the fairway a little and missing by a lot.) You never show up on Tour, or at least don't stay for long, if you aren't long enough AND accurate enough; distance alone doesn't get it done.
I think there are plenty of people out there who are long and wild, but they don't make the PGA Tour. I think it's also true to say that as people in general get longer, they tend to get straighter too. Hitting it long for the most part requires solid and square contact, which will generally mean as people hit it longer, they'll also hit it straighter. That sounds contradictory, but among those players who can hit it only 200 yards, a lot of them are also wild. Players who can hit it 300 yards are more accurate on average (you have to hit it solidly to hit it 300), but some of them hit it wild (you don't have to miss by much at high clubhead speeds to have the ball go a long way off line). Watch some of the LDA stuff (long drive). Those guys hit it miles, but only have to hit a 60 yard wide grid once out of 6 or 8 balls to count. How many of them are on the PGA Tour? If it was all about length, it would be the same people in LDA as on the PGA tour. So far as I am aware those are two sets that look like this on a Venn diagram: 0 0
In any case, if you can hit it 50 yards further than I can, why shouldn't you have an advantage? If you hit it straighter than me you should have an advantage for that too. If I can hit it closer than you, then I should have an advantage for that. I don't think architects should do anything to try and remove the benefits that the long hitter has over the short hitter. I do think that it is a good idea to make sure that the tees people are playing from offer the same challenges to each player. And then I think it falls on the player to make the right decision as to which tee to play. If you're a short hitter and you want to compete with the guys who hit it long, then your either not going to stick around for very long or you better make sure that you make up for it with other parts of your game (like Zach Johnson does or Corey Pavin did/does).
Lastly, I think a long succession of holes like 8 at Shinnecock where length gives you both a better angle and a larger target would get tiresome, but I don't mind it once. I saw Gary Wolstenholme playing at RSG in the Open in likely 2003, but may have been 1993 and he couldn't clear the bunker on the 4th. He had to play to a very narrow area to the left of the bunker. That left him way back. Just about the entire rest of the field could clear the bunker. That's fine. If he wants to compete, then either he needs to hit it longer, or he needs to pull up the rest of his game.
-
I wonder if there are any long hitters who wish they were shorter hitters? :)
Atb
-
Yes, they're the guys hitting a 3 iron from the tee. ;)
Niall
-
I understand there are built in advantages to being long that will never be negated. Once again, its about balance.
And what i'm advocating is playing courses or using setups that help bring out other qualities as well.
For example, the 380 yard par 4, which you rarely see on Tour anymore. For the pros this is a shortish hole where the long hitters lose thier advantage. A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one. Why not use a few more of these?
Seems like most Tour par 4s are 440-500, with a few 320 ones sprinkled in.
-
A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one.
I believe Dr. Brodie has taught them otherwise. Getting as close as possible is the winning strategy.
-
For example, the 380 yard par 4, which you rarely see on Tour anymore. For the pros this is a shortish hole where the long hitters lose thier advantage. A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one. Why not use a few more of these?
Unless the pin is way up front or there's some other big advantage to being able to spin the ball a good bit, they're better off from 60 than 110.
So are amateurs.
-
A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one.
I believe Dr. Brodie has taught them otherwise. Getting as close as possible is the winning strategy.
Garland, you are correct; Broadie's data on this is clear.
-
Long hitters will always have an advantage. I just try to dampen the effect of that, instead of exaggerating it. The more we can do that, the better the good player must play to cash in on his advantage.