[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Patrick,
I believe that it is possible to design for radically different levels and the proof already exists in the Tour level courses that the general golfing public plays every day.

I would disagree, and would offer the following.

When the PGA Tour Pros come in to play one of these courses, especially one set up as a complete challenge, everybody on this site screams about the changes needed to prepare the course for that challenge.

The objections range from new tees, new tee angles, altered rough lines, altered rough depth, adding bunkers, moving bunkers, and altering greens.

Just look at the Bethpage and Riviera threads to revisit the objections.

I think two distinct games exist.
One game for the PGA Tour Pro and another game for the rest of us.

I don't believe that one course, without substantial alteration, can provide a challenge to the PGA Tour Pro while at the same time provide a challenge for the rest of us.

I believe that the USGA still holds the "Closed Open" on the monday after the US Open.  I think anyone who has played that monday understands the dramatic difference in the golf course versus that golf course three years prior to the Open.
And it is those differences that many on this site go ballistic about.

I contend that they play with different equipment then the rest of us, balls and clubs.
Do you think the golf balls that we play, are the same golf balls that the PGA Tour Pros play, or do you think they pass through additional quality control tests before being put in the bags of the PGA Tour Pros ?  

How can the same golf course and its architecture serve the games of two radically different golfers at the same time ?
And, can you site me some specific examples of golf courses that can accomplish this, without having the handicaps of the rest of us rise by 4-10 shots ?  

Thanks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim,

I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am right or they are wrong and I don't try to be assumptve when responding.
I don't think you are seeing the context in which I made the "equality" supposition. I said that the 100yd aerial shot from a particular area would probably be their 3rd instead of their 2nd, a clear recognition of the differences in abilities, and the running shot. I was referring to the stratagems, air or ground, not the strategy of the player.

Pat,
I do believe that the Tour should not play on certain courses, the ones that should be left alone for whatever reason.
You mentioned the Monday post-Open event. Two friends of mine, one a reporter, played WFW after the Open. One shot an honest 5 shots over his handicap(10) and the other, the reporter, shot 7 over his(18). It was the first time either had played the course and even if you believe in perfectly portable handicapping I think they faired well.
Thanks for reminding me of this.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Did they play the course all the way back ?

As I said, add 4-10 shots to your handicap, and they both fell into that range.

[Steve_L.]

Jim,

You are mostly right about the choices - except that to go left of the hollows puts you in the trees...

The nature of strategy is that when you fail to execute your shot along your intended line - you may well be screwed (see one dimensional hack out from hollows).

In any case IMO strategy is about choices - not just different lines of play.  To follow Pat's line of thinking, choices are harder to force onto the Pro's.  They have shotmaking ability to execute shots which most of us may not have.

All the best.

Steve

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

My first indication that you may be right came in 1985 standing in the middle of the 16th fairway at Pine Valley listening to Bob Lewis make his club selection to play a shot that would win the Walker Cup.

After being told the yardage was 185, Bob insisted on clarifying whether it was 185 or 185 & 1/2 yards. He then made his club selection and hit his approach to about three feet.

I knew right then and there that with my 7 or 8 handicap I played a completely different game.

Now, consider a few things. Bob Lewis was clearly one of the best amateurs in the world - only 3 or 4 people have ever achieved a better overall Walker Cup record - but he wasn't a professional. I'm not sure he was one of the best 100 players in the world.

Then, consider the equipment. That was eighteen years ago when completely different technology was being used, both the balls and the clubs.

Finally, we have people playing the game that are bigger, better athletes.

So, Pat, clearly these guys are playing a very different game. For them - for the elite - strategy may well be dead.

Personally, I think golf is better when you aren't THAT good. It's better when you stand over a shot unsure of whether you will pull it off. That uncertainty is critical. If you really know what is going to happen every time you swing, what fun is that?

Don't get me wrong. I would not want to be a 23 handicapper lucky just to hit any decent shots. But, the man struggling to break 80 each time he goes out may have more fun than the guy expecting to shoot in the 60s. The outcome is less predictable. The uncertainy greater. Options and strategy become far more of a real thing.

So, strategy isn't dead. Not for the vast majority. But, for an elite it is largely - though not entirely - so.

Solutions?

1) Ban professional golf altogether
2) Make professional golf legal only in Hawaii
3) Now that the guys are hitting 325 yard drive, implement a competition ball that would be cut back 20%. That's right, 20% not merely 10 percent.
4) Mandate persimmon woods with head size circa 1980
5) Ban titanium shafts

[A.G._Crockett]

Tim,
Couldn't the case be made that the ultimate strategy comes in a competition among golfers so skilled that hitting the proper side of the fairway (even at 325 yds. out) to leave the optimal approach to a particular pin position?  That seems a lot more strategic than my attempt to find any part of the fairway, then any part of the green, then somehow two putt hole after hole.

At the PGA in Atlanta two years ago, I sat behind the first green on Sunday and watched EVERY player who missed the fairway try to hit their second into the front left bunker because it was an easier up and down than the rough around the green.  Intentionally going into bunkers seems like a fair amount of strategy to me.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
It was after the PGA Tournament, not the Open, as I originally said. The Hotchkiss member, whose hdcp.was 10, shot 5 over his home course handicap, not 5 over his index. I think it was a mean feat considering the added strokes he would have received. He is here playing at the moment and I asked him about the yardage. He remembers it to be about 300 to 400 yds. shorter from where they played.

I really wasn't considering higher rough, narrower fairways, etc., as design differences, only harder playing conditions, and adding length for the Pro doesn't mean the regular player can't get around if he plays from a more forward position.

[DMoriarty]

I believe Pat's answer lies in the laws of scalability.  I'll explain...

As a given shape, say a triangle is stretched from two points (a & c) the relative angle to the third point (b) decreases. . . .
Thereby minimizing the initial effect / relationship of the strategic features.

Jim, I finally got to this thread (I had temporarily given up on Patrick's and Rich's approach to this issue.)  Interesting explanation of scalability, length, and its effect on strategy.  I had been contemplating a thread on a similar topic but would not be capable of explaining it as well as you.  

As I started reading I thought I was inclined to agree with your analysis, but your approach and schematic actually raised some questions in my mind.   I always try to think of strategy from the green back to the tee, and if I do so in relation to your diagram, I find the crucial angle unchanged.  

As you accurately depict in your schematic, courses are usually stretched from one point (the tee) with the other points (the green and features) stationary.  While this closes the angle of the tee shot, it doesn't alter the angle of the approach.  If the proper angle of approach is crucial to success on the hole, lengthening the drive would not change this.  The golfer would still have to get it to the same spot, albeit from further away.  Let me try to draw it.

_________________________________________________o.b.
                                                                           a

 T(2)               T                                                 c          xxxx G
                                                                             x
                                                                           b x
Let's pretend this is a long par 4 with lots of width.  T(1) is the original tee, G is green, xx's are features.  Let's also pretend that because of severe green contours and/or the front feature, the ideal angle of approach is from Point a, up against the o.b.  Point b is the second best, but it is also protected by a hazard.  Point c is the safest drive, but least advantageous approach.  

When the tee is moved back to T(2), The driving angle decreases, but the ideal angle of approach stays constant.  If strategy is dictated by the angle to the green, then the strategy would appear to be intact.

That being said, I do think that added length might sometimes curtail strategy, but for slightly different reasons. As the tee is moved back, the margin of error (or the degree of error) for the tee shot decreases, assuming it will be hit further (the reason for lengthening.)  This brings the o.b. and other hazard more into play.  As a result, the strategic golfer has a different risk/reward calculation from the tee, and there is a greater chance he will err on the side of caution, and play for c.   Taken to an extreme, a and b might be so risky that they are no longer viable avenues at all.

Just thoughts.  Feel free to tell me where my logic falters.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

The strategy of the angle into the green becomes less relavent as the distance to the green decreases.

The designers intended strategic approach of 150 yards into the green with a 7-iron becomes diminished if the golfer can hit a wedge from 150 yards, and becomes far less strategic when the golfer is hitting an L-wedge from 100 yards.

In your example, the golfer no longer has to hit the ball in the ideal spot that the architect's design dictated as the optimum angle of attack.

The architect, let's say, one of the old dead guys, never contemplated drives with carries of 300+ yards, hit with precision and wedges from 150 yards, hit with precision, with balls that will stop on a dime.

I do agree with you that lengthening a hole to TRY to retain the strategy for the approach shot makes sense, but many on this site don't see it that way.

[T_MacWood]

A factor that helps counteract the longer modern golfer is the severely undulating  green – one of the primary reasons ANGC and the Old course have held up for so long.

If the pin is placed on or near a severe slope it is often advisable to approach with a lower trajectory. A shot that attempts to run up to the crest of the slope or perhaps come to rest very close to the base of the slope --this shot requires touch and imagination, and most importantly it requires the proper angle of attack otherwise the option may not be available. This is true even with a relatively short approach (the result of equipment advances). How often have we seen the modern pro attempt to hit wedge into these relatively small slopey areas and either see the ball ricochet violently off a slope or land near the hole and spin off the slope and quite far from the target?

[DMoriarty]

In your example, the golfer no longer has to hit the ball in the ideal spot that the architect's design dictated as the optimum angle of attack.

The architect, let's say, one of the old dead guys, never contemplated drives with carries of 300+ yards, hit with precision and wedges from 150 yards, hit with precision, with balls that will stop on a dime.

I do agree with you that lengthening a hole to TRY to retain the strategy for the approach shot makes sense, but many on this site don't see it that way.

Patrick
The argument against the continued existence of strategy seems to be that strategy is irrelevant because good players hit it with such precision and with the ability to stop it on a dime.

I disagree.  Take this Masters.  I just didnt see that many golfers hitting it stiff for easy birdies from 15O or anywhere.   I saw alot of golfers hitting it way off line or distance, or deciding not to risk playing for the best putt.  And this was when the greens were more receptive than I have ever seen them.  If these guys are so good, then why were there only a handful under par?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

A factor that helps counteract the longer modern golfer is the severely undulating  green – one of the primary reasons ANGC and the Old course have held up for so long.

Most of the greens at ANGC and TOC are NOT severely undulating.

The second problem is the dilema created by severe undulation and increased green speeds.

There comes a point, equal to slope plus speed when the ball won't come to rest.

John Daly played what would have previously been considered an unorthodox or radical method of play when he won the British Open. Even Nicklaus, announcing his play, was shocked.
Nicklaus was explaining course management and the architecture and Daly just blew it over everything rendering Nicklaus's version of strategy obsolete.  And, Nicklaus wasn't known to be a short hitter.

Greens are usually designed with the concept of incoming shot value.  Greens previously designed to accept 2-irons from 220 to 200 yards were not designed to be small with severe undulations, slopes or tiers.  When PGA Tour players are hitting 6-iron to wedge into those same greens, the incoming shot value has been drastically altered, but the green can't be altered just for them, just for that week.

DMoriarty,

I suspect the super rainy/wet conditions, which caused the closing of the course on monday and the cancellation of the
1st round on thursday had something to do with it.

I also feel that many may have been thrown out of their normal rhythm by the play of 36 holes on friday.
Some may not have completed all 36 on friday and I believe were forced to rise early to finish saturday morning, and then, making the cut, they had to play saturday's 18 hole round.

One could also make the case that the inability to cut the rough due to the wet conditions also contributed to difficulty in scoring.

Lastly, it's just possible that the lengthening of the course also had a negative impact on scoring.

Add some or all of these factors up and it could cause scores to rise.

[DMoriarty]

John Daly played what would have previously been considered an unorthodox or radical method of play when he won the British Open. Even Nicklaus, announcing his play, was shocked.
Nicklaus was explaining course management and the architecture and Daly just blew it over everything rendering Nicklaus's version of strategy obsolete.  And, Nicklaus wasn't known to be a short hitter.

Patrick, I've seen you bring up this example before, but I don't think it supports your premise.  You have one golfer suggesting one preferred avenue of play, and another golfer successfully playing another.  Seems to support the premise that strategy is alive and well -- at least two avenues of play for great golfers to consider.  

Also, I am not sure that your recollection of the close of this tournament is accurate.  I recently watched a recap of the tournament and saw that Daly hit quite a few one iron tee shots during his last few rounds.  

As to Augusta . . .

all of the points you mention might be responsible for the high scores, but just think back to viewing the tournament and recall all of the golfers who were in the fairway, and within a mid to short iron of the hole.  Much more often than not, these approaches did not result in an easy birdie putt.  

If these guys are so long and accurate with their mid and short irons, why (at Augusta) aren't they left with uphill birdie putts inside 15 feet each time they hit an approach from a fairway inside of 190 yds?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMOriarty,

I think it does the opposite.

Nicklaus was speaking on the basis of his expertise and his game, which was exceptional, and he was guiding the viewer through the routes that John Daly should take in his quest to win the tournament.  Nicklaus was a smart and patient player.

Daly obliterated the architecture and its INTENT and influence on the play of the holes.  Bunkers and features strategically important to the play of the hole by Nicklaus, were disregared by Daly.

I also found it interesting that in the 72 holes Tiger played to win the tournament, he never hit it in one bunker.

My read, without benefit of viewing all 72 holes he played, is that he took many of these architectural features out of play with his length.

I would like to get the video tapes and view the tournaments again before signing off on my theory.

[Matthew Mollica]

Personally, I think golf is better when you aren't THAT good. It's better when you stand over a shot unsure of whether you will pull it off. That uncertainty is critical. If you really know what is going to happen every time you swing, what fun is that?

Don't get me wrong. I would not want to be a 23 handicapper lucky just to hit any decent shots. But, the man struggling to break 80 each time he goes out may have more fun than the guy expecting to shoot in the 60s. The outcome is less predictable. The uncertainy greater. Options and strategy become far more of a real thing.

Tim, as a golfer in that very bracket (touch and go to break 80), I cannot endorse your comments enough. The challenge, strategy and the variation in play from day to day simply must be far more enjoyable and rewarding than mere robotic repetition and execution of shots, as performed by so many pros so often.

When one thinks of Scotsmen on the windswept hinterland centuries ago, and the battle-hardened pros of today with their yardage books and laser sighters, it isn't hard to guess who had the better of things.

Matthew

[Matthew Mollica]

I also found it interesting that in the 72 holes Tiger played to win the tournament, he never hit it in one bunker.

My read, without benefit of viewing all 72 holes he played, is that he took many of these architectural features out of play with his length.

I would like to get the video tapes and view the tournaments again before signing off on my theory.

Pat, I know you may still be viewing the tapes, but from my small knowledge of TOC -

I cannot accept that length alone is sufficient to avoid even fairway bunkers, let along greenside traps, for 4 straight rounds, irrespective of wind, and especially considering the firmness of the fairways. One look at a tee ball bounding dozen of yards forward after landing tells you that accuracy, luck and other factors are at play. Sure there are zones of fairway where if you drive beyond 300yds, few bunkers are in play for the next 80yds of fairway, but that is the exception, rather than the rule at TOC, at least rom what I know of the course....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()