GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
Yardages vrs score - long hitters vrs short hitters.
Brent Hutto:
I used to play with a guy at my club who was in his early 70's. If he ever missed the sweet spot on an iron by more than a millimeter it was a very rare event. His shots had "the sound" time after time after time. Always knew where his ball was going and how far.
But he only hit a 7-iron about 140 yards and his drives maybe 220-ish. Twenty years earlier I'd imagine he hit every shot just as flush but got 20-30 more yards on every shot.
His handicap was about 3-4 now versus scratch or better in his prime. I'm sure he thought that was a fair enough reckoning of how much less "skilled" he was at age 70 than at age 50. Not sure how you'd want a handicapping system that did NOT reflect 30 yards less distance as a higher handicap.
Keep in mind, the handicap system is to provide a fair game between players of dissimilar capabilities. As such it absolutely must incorporate distance potential into that reckoning. That said, whatever the handicap index I'd still rather play for money against a guy who catches it on the heel or toe pretty often...
David_Tepper:
Thomas D. -
I am not sure I understand the point of your post. Bigger, faster, stronger athletes have an advantage in just about every sport.
One of the nice things about golf is that, if you are deficient in one facet of the game, you can make up for it elsewhere. This allowed Paul Runyan to compete with Sam Snead, Gary Player to compete with Jack Nicklaus, Corey Pavin to compete with Fred Couples and allows Luke Donald to compete with the bombers of today.
If you can't hit it far, you better learn how to pitch, chip & putt. ;)
DT
Garland Bayley:
Don't play it forward.
Tell the pros to play it from 8500 where they belong.
Let's not screw up the game anymore than we have to.
Thomas Dai:
I’m not sure that 8,500 yd courses as mentioned above are even long enough for the big boys of the pro tour game.
Given todays athletic bomber long hitters and their nutrition and exercise regimes plus ball and club fitting techniques I reckon more like 9,500-10,000 yds is probably closer to the mark. Which, as per the recent discussion thread on rollbacks etc, brings all sorts of other issues into the equation like land availability, water usage etc etc etc. As to the long hitter vrs short hitter conundrum, I suggest that lengthening courses actually tilts the disparity from the scoring point of view even more in favour of the power player.
How about a complete turn about?
Why not make courses much, much shorter? Play tight 6,000 yarders with dog-legged fairways, wickedly shaped and sloped greens, penal fairway hazards. You could fit an 18-holer at 6,000 yds plus a 3,000 yd 9-holer into a patch of land that could take one 10,000 yd course. Or at an existing 7,500 yd area, fit in a 6,000 yd 18-holer plus a par-3 academy course for kids to learn on and the infirm to play some fun golf plus have a Himalayas type putting green as well. Shorter should mean quicker rounds, less expensive golf plus other savings and should bring skill and artistry back into the higher levels of the game with a premium on accuracy, course management, shot placement and spin control.
Oh, and, while your at it, cut back on the maximum number of clubs players can use in competitions, pro tour comps as well, to say 8 or 9 clubs max.
Thinking outside the box never hurts.
All the best.
Garland Bayley:
The reason I said 8500, is because I read a conversion using Venturi's length when he won at Congressional to the distances the modern players hit the ball. The conversion said 8500 would get the players hitting the same clubs. So the hacker playing from 6300 back then would still play approximately the same at 6300 now, but the tour players playing at near 7000 yards back then would need 8500 to duplicate the test.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version