[George Pazin]

I find that I need an extra wood and an extra wedge on US courses because generally more carries are required...especially around greens due more snad and rough.

Pietro

I don't think of it as negative talk...more realistic talk for two reasons

1) It makes golfers look at the trouble spots...generally...most of the trouble is in front of greens...not behind...except, generally on Ross courses 

2) Handicap golfers rarely hit their max yardage.  It will pay more often than not to take a club which you know will carry trouble...just as it is conversely true that it will pay more often than not to make sure you take a club which will be short of trouble...if you are going to lay-up then damn it...lay up.  So sure, for the lay-up shots definitely take ino account max yardages for clubs and then do the opposite of what I wrote above     

At the moment I don't have a clue how far my clubs go because of a dicky wrist and I am finding myself going long much more than previously.  It reminds me of when I first started playing in the UK back when they used shorter flag sticks...it took me some while to re-learn the visuals of a shot...I was long a ton. 

Ciao

This is really interesting to me. My experiences suggest the exact opposite: it's usually death to be past a green, but far less so to be short, the obvious exception being holes fronted by water. Plus, most greens slope from high in back to low in front, so if you're short, you're putting uphill, but long means you're putting downhill, and I'd rather putt up than down, or even across, which brings in bigger breaks.


Maybe it's because I live in a hilly area.


I can see high handicappers being generally overly optimistic about yardages, which would argue for taking more club, but if you're at all realistic, I think it's usually safer to underclub than overclub.

[Sean_A]

George


I am not really advocating going over greens, just making sure one gets beyond the water and sand short of greens...this is what I meant by most trouble is by far short of greens. That said, lots of times going a bit long (say 5 yards) isn't a big deal.  I rarely see 20 cappers wind up 5 yards long compared to 5 yards short in sand etc....and I watch a lot of 20 cappers put a load of Xs on their cards because they can't cope well with sand.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

My experiences suggest the exact opposite: it's usually death to be past a green, but far less so to be short, the obvious exception being holes fronted by water. Plus, most greens slope from high in back to low in front, so if you're short, you're putting uphill, but long means you're putting downhill, and I'd rather putt up than down, or even across, which brings in bigger breaks.

Different perspectives.  Many U.S. parkland courses have greens built up substantially at the back to provide a back to front slope; few U.K. courses do, plus the greens are slower over there.  Sean would be the first to agree that "over" at Grosse Ile is dead.

[Garland Bayley]

You aren't really siting the issue...the issue is about expectations.  I see high cappers expect to hit their max distance with clubs all the time without regard to the consequences should they not pull the shot off...and they rarely pull it off.  Generally speaking, most high cappers in most instances should use more club than they believe to be accurate for their well struck shot.  It doesn't make a lot of difference if a high capper knows how far his well hit shot goes when he pulls it off so rarely.  If the mantra of golf is not about the best shots, but the misses has any truth to it, it is especially so for high cappers.  I am ecstatic if I hit 10 full shots in a round as I planned...more or less.   

Ciao

Obviously, you play with different types of players than I do. The single digit I play with never takes enough club. The consequences are that he is short in the fairway. He would claim that I and the other high handicappers in the group take too much club, because we generally hit the expected distance, and are in trouble left and right of the green.

It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of high handicappers. Those that have a consistant swing that rarely screw up royally, so there variation is in the quality of the strike, and those who hit the ball well, but tend to screw up royally with a hitch in the swing that produces big slices, hooks, tops, and chunks a few random times through the round.

[Ken Moum]

I've tried off and on to play with short sets and always went back to 14, but only because I have had sooo many golf clubs to try.  (Like 1,000 or 1,500).


The idea of shorter gaps as you age is absolutely true in my case, I long ago gave up on three woods off the turf, and carry a 20* five wood and a 26* nine wood.


Those probably make for good gaps with a driver.  Something like 200, 180, 160.


I have a 28* six hybrid that's maxed out a 150 these days, but more realisically 140-45


The next logical club would be 8 iron at ~120


Then a PW at 95 or so.


I don't carry a normal SW and I'd hate to give up my 52* "long" SW. but probably could get by nicely with just the 60* (which I am NOT giving up)


With a putter, that's eight clubs and I bet I don't score any worse with them.


Next time I play, that's going to be my lineup.

[Ira Fishman]

I took four clubs out my bag today for a 9 hole break on a nice winter day in DC area. Had zero impact on my game except for one shot where I would have appreciated having my 3 wood into a quick breeze. Made walking up the hills so much easier. I will take five clubs out of bag next time. Really did bring back fond memories of my starter set from 45+ years ago.


Ira

[Kyle Harris]

Need!?

As in bare-minimum-absolutely-necessary-to-play the game?

By definition, one.

Anything less and you can no longer play golf. Any more and you are choosing based out of want.

[George Pazin]

My experiences suggest the exact opposite: it's usually death to be past a green, but far less so to be short, the obvious exception being holes fronted by water. Plus, most greens slope from high in back to low in front, so if you're short, you're putting uphill, but long means you're putting downhill, and I'd rather putt up than down, or even across, which brings in bigger breaks.

Different perspectives.  Many U.S. parkland courses have greens built up substantially at the back to provide a back to front slope; few U.K. courses do, plus the greens are slower over there.  Sean would be the first to agree that "over" at Grosse Ile is dead.

Makes sense. My experience is virtually all parkland, with a small sprinkling of desert courses thrown in. Desert tend to be fairly brutal past the green as well, in my limited experience.


I tend to be more the second type of player Garland describes. My game is superficially not bad, but my misses tend to be catastrophic... I'm a pretty good scramble choice, as no one need play my disasters, and I hit some pretty nice shots and long putts in any given round.

[Sean_A]

My experiences suggest the exact opposite: it's usually death to be past a green, but far less so to be short, the obvious exception being holes fronted by water. Plus, most greens slope from high in back to low in front, so if you're short, you're putting uphill, but long means you're putting downhill, and I'd rather putt up than down, or even across, which brings in bigger breaks.

Different perspectives.  Many U.S. parkland courses have greens built up substantially at the back to provide a back to front slope; few U.K. courses do, plus the greens are slower over there.  Sean would be the first to agree that "over" at Grosse Ile is dead.

As I say, generally speaking, over on a Ross course is trouble unless the hole is cut near the front of the green.  Long at Grosse Ile is generally grassy, but usually deadly...even with greens running at 9.  There are maybe 5 greens where it isn't too bad.  The best broad advice anyone could offer a high capper or any capper really) when playing a Ross course is to keep the ball between the player and the hole. 

The difference in the UK is often the grass is shortish long so one can do a bump into the hill.  The main reason in the US for death behind greens is one must carry rough to the green...there is little option bounce shots up the slope.  It is so much design as presentation.   

In any case...I reiterate that I wasn't advocating flying over greens, just making sure players could reach the middle of the green without hitting their best shot.  I believe the odds are with the long capper who errs on the side of more club raher than hoping to hit the perfect shot with the "right" club...that is assuming the player even has a realistic idea of how far his clubs go in all conditions...something I seriously doubt.  I see many more players, probably in the multiple of 100, who are short compared to long. 

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

What if the Rules stated, for every club you have in your bag, you must add one shot to your score?


Or two shots per club?


How many clubs would you want to carry?  My guess is there's no way it's 14.  Maybe ten.  Maybe five, depending on the player.


P.S.  Last month I Googled and found some YouTube excerpts for the one-club match at St. Andrews after The Open in 1984 ... which featured Ballesteros and Trevino vs. Aoki and Faldo.  They all used 5-irons.  They played the holes out at the far end of the course -- looked like maybe #6 through #13 -- and Seve made a bunch of pars with just his 5-iron.  Watching them try to hit a 5-iron as far as they could off #13 tee was probably the highlight.

Tom,


Isn't golf a better game when there are decisions to be made and a mental element to the game?  If you play with one club, or limited clubs, golf become more a game of execution and less a game of decisions and strategy.  Ideally, if golf is to be an interesting game then not only should we be advocating for strategically designed golf courses but also an increase in the number of clubs allowed to be played. 


Framing the golf club debate in terms of score is no more enilghtened than framing US Open set up in terms of score. 


I want interesting golf.  That means playing interesting golf courses with 20-30 golf clubs. 

[Garland Bayley]

...
I want interesting golf.  That means playing interesting golf courses with 20-30 golf clubs.

As was written above, how is executing the same swing over and over again interesting?

The fact that you don't have the perfect club to decide on, makes the decision interesting.

Determining the distance needed, and choosing the appropriate club sounds more like table lookup than thought.

[Lou_Duran]

As was written above, how is executing the same swing over and over again interesting?

How would you know?

But to answer the question seriously, but perhaps not literally, the higher handicap player needs relatively few clubs, maybe six or seven.  The low handicap player doesn't need any more, but would enjoy the game more and score better with 12-14 clubs, perhaps more or less depending on his mental make-up.

[Thomas Dai]

If you play with ...... limited clubs, golf become more a game of execution and less a game of decisions and strategy.

With the greatest respect I reckon it’s the other way around.
Each to their own though.
Atb

[David_Tepper]

Lorne Rubenstein column on a 10-club limit:

https://scoregolf.com/blog/lorne-rubenstein/lighten-the-load-please/

[David_Elvins]

If you play with ...... limited clubs, golf become more a game of execution and less a game of decisions and strategy.

With the greatest respect I reckon it’s the other way around.
Each to their own though.
Atb

I think on soft courses with bad architecture you might be right. 


But you saw on the video at St Andrews where they only played with 5 irons that there were all types of interesting shots that could not be played with that club.


Due to the 14 club limit I do not carry a 60, 64 or 68 degree wedge.  Carrying those clubs would probably not improve my score but I guarantee it would make the game a lot more interesting for me and my playing partners. 


I would also greatly enjoy golf more if I could carry a 1 iron, a magic chipper, a left handed niblick, a rock iron, and a cut down 38 inch driver. 

[Tom_Doak]

Lorne Rubenstein column on a 10-club limit:

https://scoregolf.com/blog/lorne-rubenstein/lighten-the-load-please/

Lorne's article suggests limiting Masters competitors to ten clubs.  IMO, Augusta would be the hardest course for the players to adjust to this.  There are tons of holes where you have to carry the ball a precise distance to clear a hazard but stay below the hole.




Meanwhile, David E:  How would the game be more interesting if you and your playing partners had a wedge handy for every conceivable distance?

[David_Elvins]

Meanwhile, David E:  How would the game be more interesting if you and your playing partners had a wedge handy for every conceivable distance?

Tom,
Because on a great course that plays firm, there are multiple trajectories and distances one can use to get to the hole.  If you have one club, many of those possibilities are eliminated and the default play becomes conservative.  Carrying 7 or 8 wedges creates many more possible shot  trajectories and landing zones.


It is contradictory, IMO to celebrate the risk and reward in architecture and not celebrate the risk and reward of pulling out the 68 degree wedge. 

[A.G._Crockett]

The last time I played in a limited club tournament, it happened to be 4 clubs.  After a ton of thought and scribbling, I took a 5 wood, 7 iron, 54* wedge, and putter.

I hit the 5 wood TWENTY-ONE times; 14 tee shots, 4 second shots on par 5s', and three second shots on par 4's.  No decisions about laying up off the tee.  No decisions about trying to cut a corner off a dogleg.  No decisions about going for the green in two on a par five.  And my goal on approach shots wasn't related to much of anything other than playing AWAY from bunkers; risk-reward was out the window.  I couldn't reach many, if any, of the fairway bunkers off the tee, and from the rough I just had to get the ball back in play as best I could.  Literally, my goal going to the first tee was to try to have a par putt on every hole, regardless of distance, and to avoid double bogey.

If that is your idea of enhanced decision-making and strategy, then I think I see the game differently than you.  At my course, when I stand in the fairway on 18 and the pin is on the front just over a really tough bunker, I have a decision to make, and the decision centers around hitting a 7 iron at the pin, or taking an 8 or 9 and playing away from the hole and then trying to get up and down.  Wind factors in, my lie factors in, how well I'm hitting it factors in, and what's at stake on the various bets factors in.  But if I don't have all three of those clubs, and therefore choices, available strategies are REDUCED, not enhanced.  Same with the fairway bunker on the inside of the dogleg on 9 and 11.  Same with playing a cut off the tee on 10.  If you limit the clubs, you limit the choices for those shots.  You just play away from trouble; you don't take it on.

Look, I get it that you have to play golf differently with fewer clubs, and that you have to think your way around the golf course in a different fashion.  That can be a cool exercise, and coaches of HS and college teams sometimes do that with their players, making them play without a driver, or without a lob wedge so they see the course a bit differently instead of just playing "bomb and gouge".

But the idea that somehow strategy INCREASES when there are fewer choices is just silly to me.  Where else is THAT true, in ANY sport, much less golf?  Is a hole with FEWER architectural features MORE strategic?  Is a green with LESS contour MORE strategic?  The number of available choices increases decision making; it doesn't decrease it.

(And one final note: Those of you that are talking about executing the same swing over and over, except with a different club, can stop writing that; you aren't that good.  You WISH you could make a good swing over and over, except with a different club; this is NOT the way you are playing!  You can insert either a smiley OR a frowny face emoticon here.) 

[Tom_Doak]

If you have one club, many of those possibilities are eliminated and the default play becomes conservative.  Carrying 7 or 8 wedges creates many more possible shot  trajectories and landing zones.

It is contradictory, IMO to celebrate the risk and reward in architecture and not celebrate the risk and reward of pulling out the 68 degree wedge.

Then I'm contradictory, I guess, because I just don't see it that way at all.  To me - a guy with nothing more lofted than a pitching wedge in his bag - a 68-degree wedge is a crutch that allows a player without half-shots to make a full swing for a very short shot.  It doesn't make any more shot trajectories possible ... it just makes them automatic, instead of requiring you to do some old-fashioned shotmaking. 

[Lou_Duran]

(And one final note: Those of you that are talking about executing the same swing over and over, except with a different club, can stop writing that; you aren't that good.  You WISH you could make a good swing over and over, except with a different club; this is NOT the way you are playing!  You can insert either a smiley OR a frowny face emoticon here.)

Nice post.  You are a different animal, A.G., you play a game where you try to get the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes.  Playing Pine Valley, you would be doing everything you can to avoid the Devil's Asshole (my apologies to Dick Durbin) instead of purposely hitting into it.  I am not sure that the DG is much different than the population at most good golf clubs.  One thing to think and write about strategy, a completely different thing to execute the swing.  If we are really honest, we are often just trying to elevate the ball and avoid disaster.

[A.G._Crockett]

If you have one club, many of those possibilities are eliminated and the default play becomes conservative.  Carrying 7 or 8 wedges creates many more possible shot  trajectories and landing zones.

It is contradictory, IMO to celebrate the risk and reward in architecture and not celebrate the risk and reward of pulling out the 68 degree wedge.

Then I'm contradictory, I guess, because I just don't see it that way at all.  To me - a guy with nothing more lofted than a pitching wedge in his bag - a 68-degree wedge is a crutch that allows a player without half-shots to make a full swing for a very short shot.  It doesn't make any more shot trajectories possible ... it just makes them automatic, instead of requiring you to do some old-fashioned shotmaking.

Tom,
I don't know that I've ever even SEEN at 68* wedge live and in person, but I can guarantee you that anything with more loft than about 58* is hardly "automatic".  Even a 60* is a club for guys that can REALLY play; it doesn't make a chop into a player. 

And in any case, I don't think anybody (including David Elvins) is really advocating going beyond 14 clubs.  I just think that the contention that fewer clubs somehow creates more decision-making and strategy are in play is just 100% wrong.  It's just a different kind of decision-making and a different kind of strategy, a not at all superior version, and really sort of dull other than for the occasional practice round or funky tournament event, IMO. 

Fewer clubs, fewer choices.  Fewer choices, less strategy.  Playing away from any and all trouble simply because you are limited in the shots you can execute just isn't a very interesting way to play golf, at least on a regular basis.

You put bunkers on golf courses to, among other things, test a player's ability.  You put contour into greens for the same reason. You do LOTS of things in your designs to test the player's ability to overcome a challenging shot, and yet would like to see players play your courses with LESS ability to accept the challenges that you've designed?  I just don't get it.  At all...

[Bruce Katona]

I could easily play with 8 or 9 clubs; the difference in score would be minimal.

[George Pazin]

I don't know that I've ever even SEEN at 68* wedge live and in person, but I can guarantee you that anything with more loft than about 58* is hardly "automatic".


...

Fewer clubs, fewer choices.  Fewer choices, less strategy.

You obviously play a very different game than I do. (And that's ok.) The one summer I got to play a good amount, 1998 when I was still relatively new to the game, I played a lot with limited sets. I didn't even carry any woods, I was trying to simplify to learn how to play (foolish approach and goal, in retrospect). I did carry a 64 degree wedge that I could hit about 45 yards on the button with a simple repeatable swing.


And lest you scoff at the notion that any of us have repeatable swings, I once read an article about how golf is mathematically impossible - 2 or 4 degree differences in clubface angle and/or loft become huge when magnified to a certain degree. Yet many of us still manage to play and enjoy the game, so our swings are at least repeatable enough, if not repeatable to a degree you desire.


Regarding fewer clubs, fewer choices, well, I think many would say, fewer clubs, more shot variety required. Learning how to hit low running shots, high lofted shots, all from the same club - why, no less a certifiable great than Seve learned in such a manner. From what I've read about Penick and Kit and Crenshaw, they did similar things. If you're simply defining a shot by its length, then indeed; fewer clubs = fewer options. But I suspect there are some out there who don't simply view as an implement that hits the ball XXX number of yards.


A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, someone (and I do remember his name) once posted on here that for him, the 10th at Riviera was just a simple driver 2 putt birdie. Yet, somehow it manages to provide a challenging test, even a vexing text, for about 150 guys each year during a tourney formerly known as the LA Open...


That's the beauty of our game. It's unique to each of us.


-----


Excellent post, Bruce!

[Bruce Katona]

George:

When I learned to play I didn't have a full set of clubs (I had real blade irons and wood woods) so we all had to learn to play different shots with the limited tools available and the balls that would wobble when out of round.


It was (and is) still fun to play when most of the time the balls goes where you aim.

[George Pazin]

And yet, somehow, some posters on here would argue that because you had fewer clubs, you had fewer choices. If you only knew how simple the could was back then! What's really odd to me is I'd guess that's how many or even most of us learned to play the game.


We each find our own reasons to play, and play in our own way. In a weird way, I think that must be the single most difficult part of being an architect!


Except they can always drop back to USGA formulas: 20 handicappers hit the ball this far, 15s this far, 10s this far, seniors this far, women this far....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()