Length and Rewards

[Jeff Fortson]

In an attempt to not sidetrack Lynn Shackelford's thread on MacKenzie and his thoughts on length, I wanted start a new topic to pose a question that Lynn's thread made me contemplate.....

Should the longer hitter be rewarded with more room to hit his/her drive?

I guess what I am asking is should the long hitter be penalized for having the ability to hit the ball far or should he/she be rewarded?  Should fairways be narrowed for the long ball hitter and widened for the shorter hitter or just the opposite?

It seems that through Lynn's quote of MacKenzie that the Good Doctor thought that maybe long drivers of the golf ball should be rewarded for their talent.  

Should the long driver get an exponentially wider fairway than his fellow short hitter?  Or, should the fairway get relatively larger as the tee shot gets longer?  Or, should the fairway be virtually the same width for all hitters (this would mean that for the longer hitter the fairway would be relatively smaller)?  Or, should the fairway get smaller as the drive gets longer, and in effect, make it much more difficult for the long driver than the short driver?

I know there are a lot of questions in this post but I think you get the message of my query.  I'd love to hear everyone's take on this.  I'll put in my two cents once some replies start to roll in.

Jeff F.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff:

For the sake of the game (and the bottom 80%), I'd rather see more width for the shorter hitter. All those golfers out there who struggle to hit a long ball have even more trouble with accuracy.

[ForkaB]

I personally like the hole which has some sort of relatively narrow landing area, out at the distance to which an elite player might carry his drive; but which, if you reach it, then provides some sort of "turbo boost" to a relatively wide open area.  This gives:

1.  a high reward to the skillful execution of a courageous strategy
2.  a commensurately high risk if the execution is faulty
3.  an "elysian field" for the second shot of the not so accomplished player

Augusta 13 and 15 seem to embody this principle, as do 12 Shinnecock, 14 Merion, 9 Dornoch, etc.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jeff,

You pose some interesting questions, real dilemas to today's architects

How can those who constantly champion wider fairways to promote angles and options not endorse wide fairways for the longer driver, contradicting many of the classic architects ?

I don't believe any of those classic designers ever phantomed the CARRY distances achieved by today's golfers.

In light of high tech producing straighter, longer drives, shouldn't there be a greater need to place a premium on driving accuracy ?  A need through golf course design to offset or counter the advances in technology which produce longer, straighter drives ?

Many support the theory that the primary defense of the hole should be at the green, but high tech has defeated many of those defenses as well.  Clubs that have low centers of gravity, perimeter weight, and balls that have high spin rates combine to make the aerial assault undefensible, even for the most difficult pin positions.

Perhaps the answer lies in a return to more penal golf, a return to hazards within the lines of play for all levels of golfers.

In order to appeal to a broader base it appears that golf in the U.S. has gravitated toward inserting the element of fairness and predictability, perhaps it is time to reverse that trend.

I'm not interested in making the game easier, for any level of golfer, in order to appeal to and attract more people to the game.  For the record, I feel the same way about not transforming chess into checkers.

Perhaps the answer lies in the concept of target golf with options.  An example of this might be the 8th hole at NGLA.

In order to address Jeff's questions, I would ask, should better golfers be subjected to a more severe test in driving
the golf ball ?  Or should all level of golfers be provided with the same test ?  And, at the play on most golf courses
doesn't risk/reward increase as one's handicap lowers ?

Jeff, is a 28 handicap capable of determining risk/reward and secondly, if they could, could they execute the shot with any degree of certainty ?

I think the above question would lead one to the conclusion that the lower the handicap, the more severe the test, and therefore a premium on driving accuracy should be placed on the LONG ball.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[texsport]

Requiring greater accuracy of long drives is popular only with those who cannot go deep. Obviously, if two golf balls are driven, each 1* off center line, and the 1st goes 240 yards while the 2nd goes 300 yards, both were driven with equal accuracy. Equally clear is the fact that the 300 yard drive will be further from the center of the fairway than the 240 yarder. How is it reasonable to penalize the 300 yard drive with a narrower target than the 240 yarder?

The level of play being considered dictates course design.
Top level competitive golf is supposed to be about identifying the best player. Recreational, pretend competition, is about handicaping the better player so that the poorer player has a chance to brag that he beat the better player. Ego building for the poorer player but doesn't identify who the best player actually was. Taking the driver out of the hands of the longer hitter, by requiring twice the accuracy of the short hitter is BS.

You don't see the PGA Tour doing much Tigerizing of their courses. That only happens when Seve sets up the European Ryder Cup sites.

Texsport

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Texsport,

But, if you don't place a premium on driving accuracy you defeat the architecture of the hole.

You make it more difficult for the short driver and easier for the long driver.

The 8th hole at NGLA is a perfect example.
With centerline bunkering, a golfer can select to hit it to the right or left of the centerline bunkering.  The left side requires a longer, riskier drive, but rewards the golfer with a higher elevation, flater fairway and prefered angle of attack.  The right side requires a shorter carry, less risk, but a more difficult second shot into the elevated green.  A BIG drive takes all of that wonderful stuff, the mental assessment and execution of the drive, out of play, leaving the golfer with a flat lie, shorter shot and a good angle into the green.
Shouldn't that long driver be faced with similar obstacles or are you saying that LONG drivers should be rewarded, absolutely ?

If a long driver is going to be rewarded with a sand wedge into the green, shouldn't he be required to face more than fairway and rough on his drive ?

P.S.  I'd like to see today's golfers swing as hard as they do with an old persimmon, 43 inch, McGregor-Wilson-Powerbuilt driver.  Long & Wrong and, the woods are filled with long drivers isn't true today due to equipment.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Reread your post reply #3 and when you're done instead of trying to think of all kinds of solutions with architectural applications just think maintenance--like in "maintenance meld"--ie "ideal maintenance meld".

It's amazing to me even from experience if you can't get some desired result with architecture you can get the same desired effect with maintenance--and very much in a strategic sense.

I see there that you said that high tech equipment and the aerial game may have defeated aspects of architecture such as defending any pins from aerial attack.

Is that really true? I don't think so. Forget about the architecture and architectural defenses to the aerial game and think maintenance--the "ideal maintenance meld" for that type of problem in certain situations.

Think about the firmness of the green surfaces for instance--think of what a valuable component that one aspect alone (green firmness) can be in the application of the "ideal maintenance meld"--and even for good players in strategic considerations etc.

Can you deny that would make a good player think twice about various aerial shots? Can you deny that would be a very effective defense for a golf course in certain situations?

It's all a big jigsaw puzzle you know and when you can't think of the answer to something in an architectural context always think in a maintenance context and I bet you can find a good answer in a maintenance application--in the "ideal maintenance meld".

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Your comments about not wanting to make golf easier to attract more people to the game bring to mind one of the most interesting golf architecture experiences I've had in recent years.

Forgive give me if you recall me telling the story before, but I was greatly influenced by a man I met a couple years ago down at a local muni. This wasn't just any local muni. It was a nine hole course of about 2700 yards clearly built with the beginner in mind.

This gentleman was in his forties and had taken up the game in the past year. About ten years before, he tried playing a couple times but quickly gave it up because he found the game just too difficult. Now a year into playing, he still displayed very little ability. He had almost no ability to control the direction of ball flight. I don't think he ever hit the ball more than 150 yards. That's the good part. Around the green, he displayed no "touch" whatsoever.

But, put all that aside. What stood out most was how much he seemed to be enjoying himself despite an almost total inability to play the game.

When I finally got around to engaging him in conversation he very enthusiastically told me how happy he was to have given golf a second chance.

Doing my best to be diplomatic, I suggested things would only get better when he went and played some good courses.

"Oh, I don't want to do that", he quickly replied.

Puzzled, I asked why.

"I already tried that", he explained, "there was this place where you had to get 100 yards over water.......I never want to do that ever again".

Pat, it struck me that this man was in George Crump's camp. He wasn't fortunate enough to have sampled the world's great courses, but instinctively he realized it might not be possible to design a golf course that would work for all classes of players.

I don't know if there is an economic model to support more courses for beginners, but I have a hunch that without them the sport may be struck. Golf, we sometimes forget, is a very difficult sport. If you make it too difficult, many folks at the bottom in terms of playing ability simply lose interest.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weman:

Very interesting story and just to prove that Geo Crump was not some "elite golfer" ogre intent on limiting the participation of bad players at a course like Pine Valley, did you know that Geo Crump himself, as soon as he'd completed what is the course at PVGC planned to build another course there exclusively for women--complete with all the design elements just for them?

Maybe if he lived and done that he might have also built a third course at Pine Valley designed for the exclusive use of poor players. The article did say that there was room for maybe 2-3 more courses there since it was written at that time when PVGC went from 186 acres up to 500 acres.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Interesting. I greatly enjoy Jim Finnegan's recent Pine Valley history, but clearly there is room for more writing about Crump himself.

As for the idea of a women's course, the only venue that comes to mind is Royal Country Down. Perhaps someone like Johnnie Browne knows the details of how this works. My exposure to the "ladies course" is limited to a very quick look the last time I was in Newcastle.

A course for poor players? I think Crump had the right idea.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
I think mixing up the elements that are contained in your questions and spreading them around the course gives the best result.
The story by Tim of the man who hated carries identifies the #1 fear for beginning or less than talented golfers. Add a tee box that eliminates the carry for these groups and there aren't too many courses that they could not enjoy, eventually.

[texsport]

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

         I didn't propose widening the fairways at 300 yards, just keeping it the same width as at 240 yards. It's physically more difficult to hit the fairway at 300 yards than at 240, so extra hazards are not fair. The U.S.Open proves that every year. If you place extra hazards at 300 yards, all you are doing is rewarding the short hitter. If there are hazards at 300 yards, there must also be hazards at 240 yards unless laying up to 240 means that you can't reach the green on your next shot.

It's nearly impossible to build a course equally fair to the average player and the good player. IMHO this site exists to discuss the few courses that come close to accomplishing that.

 If you make the long hitter take 2 iron off instead of driver off the tee, that player will never believe that the course is a true test of golf because he'll be playing with only 13 clubs in his bag.

I agree with you that today's equipment is making some architects create deadly hazards at 300 yards because they don't want anyone to go low on their courses. I personally like Jeff Brauer's approach of leaving room in his design to move the championship tees further back. This makes all classes of players hit driver off the tees as his fairways and hazards were designed to receive. Sooner than later, the ball will be regulated to halt the distance explosion now under way.

 Simply making the long hitter take 2 iron off the tee just takes fairway hazards out of play at the 240 yard mark  . This design is very boring and will never be rated highly by good players.

Texsport

[Doug Siebert]

There needs to be some variety.  On some holes having the fairway widen at 300 yards might be a good thing -- maybe you give longer hitters a wide target off the tee on a par 5 to encourage them to play for it in two, and save the problems for those facing a long iron or wood into your green.  On other holes I think it is totally reasonable to pinch the fairway in there, to force longer hitters to display excellent control if they are to gain a benefit from their length.  You might use that on a long par 4 where you fight with the question of hitting a long iron off the tee for position and needing another fairly long iron into the green or playing driver and risking hitting your shorter iron from the rough or sand.

I tend to fall into a habit of hitting 1 iron off the tee perhaps too often on holes much under 450, because many designs do save their more severe penalties for the longer tee shots.  I'm not accurate enough to think it is worth the risk if water or a stand of trees are guarding that area, in such cases I need to have a benefit much better than just a shorter shot into the green to try it.  Too often it is assumed that longer par 4s and par 5s need to leave room for the longer hitter to let out the shaft, and shorter par 4s (not driveable-short, just short) must be tight.  Then you tend to end up hitting a lot of the same clubs on approaches even though the holes are a variety of lengths; that's no good.

[Jeff Fortson]

Thanks for so many good responses guys, it's much appreciated.  

I agree with those that say that a course needs a variety of widths favoring different length hitters on different holes.  However, the question I am trying to get everyone to answer is more of a philosophical one.  Basically, should the skill of the longer driver be countered with a tighter landing area?

I know some argue that you should make it more difficult for the longer driver so that you can reign him/her in.  This to me seems to be a very socialist approach to the game, or a kind of "affirmative action" for the short hitter.

I happen to think that things should be as relative as possible in golf, especially competitive golf.  I am not saying that a fairway should resemble a " V " with the fairway expanding as the the drive gets longer.  That would get a little old and bland.  However, the overall experience of a course should have a relative effect in relation to length.  Shouldn't the longer driver be rewarded for his/her prowess?  

Texsport makes a good point.  A drive hit 1 degree offline on a parallel edged fairway will be more difficult to hit for the longer hitter.  Does it seem right to penalize him/her because he/she has the prowess to hit it further?  I say absolutely not in relative terms over the course of 18 holes.  

Long drivers of the ball that are as accurate in relative terms to the shorter driver should be rewarded for their skill and prowess, not penalized.

Keep the comments coming.  Great thoughts so far from all posts.


Jeff F.

[TEPaul]

JeffF:

I know you're looking for a philosophical answer to this question but I don't think you'll find much of an answer from the designers. You'll certainly find lots of opinions from contributors on here though.

I don't believe any good designer ever really proposed in a standard philosophical sense that a long hitter should be given some concession to accuracy by increased width for his long hitting in relation to the accuracy requirements for shorter hitters. I don't think any good designer ever proposed a long driver should be required to exhibit more accuracy for his long hitting either.

I think most good designers just looked at accuracy as sort of a constant concept across the board--or else they just didn't give it a lot of philosophical consideration.

What they often did do though was talk about the long hitter in relation to the short hitter a lot but in a different way--mostly in the context of the old tortoise and hare analogy.

But still I think they looked at length and accuracy as a bit more mutually exclusive than we might be trying to. They just saw them as different things. Of course they were aware of the benefits of length but they were also aware of the benefits of accuracy but again it was more mutually exclusive than we seem to think--with neither end of the spectrum deserving of more of a concession with width.

Certainly they recognized that some players were much longer than others and nothing could be done to get short players to be long. But for those tortoises the best the designers ever proposed was that they play smarter than the hares.

There was a sort of presumption in that old analogy that the hare would use his talent for length to play more recklessly somehow and it was also presumed that the tortoise would use his lack of length to not play recklessly--to play smarter only because he understood he wasn't capable of the length of the hare.

But in all that I don't believe a concession to accuracy through width was ever intended for one or the other--they were to be treated the same that way to use their different talents in different ways (strategies).

Having said all that, the only designer I'm aware of who really does seem to propose requiring long hitters to exhibit more accuracy for their length than shorter ones is Steve Smyers.

He certainly has talked about this very issue a lot. But the only real reason he seems to is because he's so troubled by how much farther the ball is going today. His design proposals seem to be aimed more at sending a message to the regulatory bodies than to punishing long hitters.

But philosophically they all recognized that if a long hitter and a short hitter played equally accurately and equally intelligently that given the difference in length of the long hitter he should win. And given that philosophic scenario no one ever proposed that anything further should be done to the long hitter to equalize things against the short hitter.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

You know that I like and support your "maintainance meld" theory, but, in practicality, how many courses are FIRM and FAST as opposed to GREEN.

And, even firm and fast greens are no match for a lob wedge with a lot of RPM's.  Concrete greens are not the answer.

Tim Weiman,

Golf was far more difficult years ago from an equipment and architectural point of view.  I'm not suggesting a return to the equipment of yesteryear, but, I do want to see a trend away from the homgenization of golf courses attempting to appeal and be more fair to every level of golfer.

I'd prefer to have a frustrated/poor golfer take up bowling rather than alter the golf course to make it easier for him.

Texsport and Jeff,

A one degree error translates to greater distances from the centerline as the length of the shot increases, but that's what skill is all about.  The zero handicap is supposed to be able to control that drive better than the 10 handicap who controls his drive better than the 20 handicap.

Where would the challenge be if the zero handicap had the same margins of play that the 30 handicap has ?

One of the problems of placing hazards at the 300 or so mark is that the higher handicap will face them as well as the ones he faced off the tee.   The lower handicap didn't face those short hazards off the tee, hence, the higher handicap player is faced with twice the number of in-play hazards as the lower handicap faces..... hardly equitable, or in the spirit of design.

Texsport,

If the width of the fairway was the same for every level of golfer, the challenge would either be diminished for the lower handicap or increased for the higher handicap.  And, if all levels of golfers should face the identical hazards, the higher handicap would be unable to complete the round.

A great golf course should have optional routes of play for different levels of golfer, and at times, test them equally.
NGLA is a perfect example of the above.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

What are the frustrated bowlers supposed to do?

No, seriously, perhaps we are on the same page. I've seen such a wide range of playing ability, that I don't think the goal should necessarily be to appeal to all classes of golfers.

A select group of courses may be able to achieve this goal, but I'm fine with the idea that certain courses just don't work for either end of the bell curve. When this occurs I don't see it as a "weakness". There are many courses out there. People should play what suits their game.

[TEPaul]

"You know that I like and support your "maintainance meld" theory, but, in practicality, how many courses are FIRM and FAST as opposed to GREEN.

And, even firm and fast greens are no match for a lob wedge with a lot of RPM's.  Concrete greens are not the answer."

Pat:

You're really missing the point. If someone is going to premise a problem and propose some solutions you should know that there should never be any automatic reason to look for those solutions in architecture alone when maintenance solutions might be so much more easily and sensibly applied.

The point isn't what is today like an abundance of soft and green it's what can be by reconsidering that.

When you talk about the RPMs of a lob wedge that is not an absolute situation and condition as you well know. The firmness of green surfaces to influence both aerial playability and strategies because of that is one of degree and the spectrum of degree can be very large in the application of green surface firmness and this well before arriving at a condition of "concrete" as you call it.

You're supposed to be a problem solver--so look for reasonable solutions wherever you can find them--the answers and solutions to problems don't have to be limited to architecture alone!

[Jeff Fortson]

Mr. Mucci,

I agree that the lower handicap needs to be challenged and the higher maybe not so much but that can be fixed with proper tee placement.  I am talking about length as it applies to similarly skilled players.  For example, should Corey Pavin (poor Corey, he's the GCA whipping boy for short hitters) have it easier off the tee than Tiger?  Should Tiger be challenged more because he is stronger, more athletic, and a higher skilled driver of the golf ball than Corey?  I think not in a philosophical sense.

On another note, I had a sort of revelation that kind of dismantles my entire position on this philosophical debate of length as it applies to reality.....

It doesn't matter how long you hit the golf ball or from what lie or angle of attack.  What matters is how many strokes it takes you to get the ball in the hole.  I guess my point is no matter how much I believe the more skilled driver of the ball should be rewarded it ultimately doesn't matter as it relates to the structure of the game.  Be it rough, fairway, sand, concrete, etc., a players ball has to eventually be holed out no matter where he/she hits it from.  That fact is the great equalizer of the game.

Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jeff,

There was a study done a few years ago, relative to length.
I forget who conducted it, but essentially the conclusion was that added length, be it in the rough or fairway, translated to more greens hit and lower scores.

Years ago, balls hit in the rough were either "flyers" or difficult to advance, with the advent of perimeter weighting, square grooves, etc.,etc.. the same rough isn't the same impediment to scoring.

I'm sure that you and I would rather take our chances with a sand or lob wedge than a 7 iron.

TEPaul,

I would like to see water become a more expensive commodity.  Only then will it be used sparingly and prudently, resulting in the playing surfaces we prefer.

Gotta run, be back later