Brad Faxon...Wally and Tim's lackey

[BillV]

Addressing points in Gary Sherman's post in particular and the thread in general, the club player benefits from new technology, but no where near as much as the elite players.  Architecture suffers as it has incrementaly over time.  We start to run out of options.

With Nike fine tuning balls for David Duval and his friend, it has reached new heights.  With the fittings (Not what you get from the cart at the club, guys, don't kid yourselves),launch and velocity monitors and the like, the gap between the club guy and the elite is getting wider and wider.  This is the key to the question of classic course preservation.

If we choose not to have an Open at the Merions and Wykagils and Salems of the world it is another solution to the problem.

As for the old clubs that hold up against par for the senior group and the amateur events, these guys are not as skilled as the players I am talking about.  You could take  top college players, put them in the senior events and the kids would show quite an advantage in ball strking, but may not win due to a number of factors, but the differences could be made more apparent.

One reason in singular events the old courses do very well is the lack of familiarity of the players with those kind of greens.  Only a few courses have the length and the greens to combat the fully-armed elite player.

So, do we decide to somehow preserve the game at some level and keep the classic courses as they are, or do we just build new courses for the future solely to test the most elite several hundred players in the world with the greatest and growing greater advantage due to technology?  To deny this question is to have one's head in the sand, in my unsolicited opinion.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoff,

I like your use of the word "dilemma".

My problem with what is happening at Augusta is that holes like #15 seem like they really aren't a "dilemma" for most of the field.

The dilemma I'm refering to is:

"Do I try to go for the green?"

Not:

"Which club do I hit?"

Indeed, the entire concept of a risk, reward Par Five is lost when most, if not the entire field, can easily accomplish the "reward".

Faxon suggests turning a couple Par 5's into Par 4s like the USGA does.  But, he does so without addressing how creating dilemmas, risk, reward holes is good for all golf, especially tournament play.

[BillV]

Perousing some other posts, the CPGC hosting the International shows my points very well.  THe altitude magnifies the data even more so.

For those who don't look it up Sergio and Vijay's distances are 374 and 414 yards respectively.

The CPGC is a bear for the club player at the 6900 yard tees, but a cupcake for the pros at nearly 7600 yards.  Even good players who are members look upon playing the back tees as a joke most of the time, unwillingly taking guest-suckers back there for a thrill and telling you where "Freddy hit it" and the like. The pros do have the advantage of prepared rock-hard fairways the week of the international, vs lush, find your ball next to its pitchmark much of the time.

The gap between the PGATour® player and you and me is large, larger and getting larger still.

[ForkaB]

Does anybody know what % of players went for 13 and 15 at ANGC last year?  Is that % a change from 10-20 years ago?  What is the historical trend for the average scores on those holes?  I don't know, but it would be nice to have some facts.

[Mike_Cirba]

414 Yards, even with 20% gain at that altitude, equals over 340 yards.  

That leaves a 110 yard pitch to a formerly lengthy 450 yard par four at sea level.  At Castle Pines, it leaves a chip.

So, for a modern archie to build a hole that VJ wouldn't consider going for in two, it would have to be about 600 yards at sea level, and about 750 at Castle Pines.

"Farewell and adieu, ye fair young maidens,
Farewell and adieu, ye ladies of Spain*..."

* Sung, Robert Shaw-like (see "Jaws"), in anticipatory memoriam for the imminent passing of our classic courses.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich:

I, too, would like to have the facts, data, etc., on Augusta holes #13 and #14.  It does seem that both sides (myself included) argue without presenting actual data to support their case.

For the holes you mentioned, it would be nice to know:

a) percent going for green in two
b) distribution of club selection for those that do

I think it would also be interesting to see the same statistics broken out for the players in contention (e.g., maybe the top twenty players going into the weekend).

While we're at it, why not gather the same kind of data on approaches to the Par Fours?

[BillV]

Just for grins, I think Bob Tway must have been the leader for driving distance yesterday in CO at 425.5.  Don't forget the 0.5.

I always enjoyed introducing the sea level people to the future of balls and implements in CO. Persimmon 3-wood was good for 300 yards when I lived there, so who needed driver?

But MikeC, I don't think 750 would do it.  600 yds was usually 3-wood, 1-iron, and that was pre-V1.  

BTW, Mickelson just happened to hole sand wedge at 3 for his eagle yesterday from 110.  I believe that hole is about 470 now with its newest tee.

[ForkaB]

BillV

I'm not sure if he was the leader, but that animal, Corey Pavin, averaged 431.5 yesterday.  It looks like, alas, that he will miss the cut.  If only he could harness all that power and learn how to hit some golf shots.................

[kilfara]

A question: how many of YOU guys want to play a rolled-back golf ball? I hit my drives in the neighborhood of 240 on my best of days, and that's when sacrificing accuracy for power. Do I really want to nail a ball to make it go 200 yards? Do YOU?

BillV suggests that the gap (in terms of talent as much as of distance, I imagine) between the Tour players and John Q. Mid-Handicapper is getting larger and larger. If that's a correct assumption, is that gap going to get smaller if we roll the ball back?

If we roll the ball back to where the "classic courses" again become playable for the pros, won't that make anything slightly longer than the classic courses unplayable for 90% of the golfers in the world?

Does Brad Faxon's column automatically point to a conspiracy involving the ball manufacturers and the tour pros? Couldn't he just be a guy speaking his mind, no matter how misguided or otherwise some of us may think him? Is it not possible that maybe he LIKES hitting the ball that little bit further - a "little bit further" which he by rights should expect from all of his hard work and practice over the years - and might be put out, mentally or otherwise, if the distances were scaled back?

Questions, questions....

Cheers,
Darren

[aclayman]

Another irony is that it is the statistics that are going to be historically altered or misleading.

Imagine if every thing was the same from the time of Donald Ross or C.B. on. No courses were altered to combat the evil techno advances.

Now, we could accurately judge the real progress of all aspects of the game.  
Trying to compare the golf that Gene Sarazen played that famous sunday and monday would be as easy as looking at the scorecard. But Now you will have to have all sorts of little asteriks denoting that the playing field was altered.

I compare it to trying to argue who the greatest running back of all time. If the game of football hadn't evolved everyone would know it was Walter Payton but since they were different eras Jim Brown won't let us forget it's him.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Wieman,

If Cypress Point hadn't taken themselves out of the Crosby/AT&T, do you think they would have made some changes in the face of today's touring pro's ability to score?

Would there be a movement to fortify the course against distance and the scoring frenzy ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

I have no special insight into how the leadership of Cypress Point might have addressed your question.

However, my gut feel is that they would have preferred to leave the place alone. It just seems more consistent with dropping out of the tournament altogether.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
Excellent point. Thankfully someone is looking out for statistical integrity. We've got those who are concerned with classic architecture, others concerned with the average Joe and now a voice from the wilderness in support of the record books. I'm must admit I'm a bit confused, I've been looking through the record book and have yet to find an asterick - does that mean we've playing the game with exact same equipment for the last 150 years?

[aclayman]

Tom -
They never ripped up Augusta like this, did they? So the asterik starts now.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Augusta has been ripped up FAR worse than this.

--An entirely new 16th hole.

--A completely reconfigured 11th.

--An entirely new green complex at the 10th, removing all of the MacKenzie/Jones right-side-tee-shot strategy.

--Removal of the remarkable boomerang from the 9th green.

--A 7th green complex changed from a Valley Of Sin pseudo-replica to a postage stamp.

Shall we continue?

Relative to past changes, what's happening this year is barely significant.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

When Cypress Point ceased being a tournament site, it had nothing to do with architecture,
or course set up.

[ed_getka]

The ball does need to be limited. The reason being that I walk when I golf. These longer courses being built nowadays with as much yardage between greens and tees as the course itself(seemingly) detracts from the enjoyment of the game. Not to mention pace of play which is pathetic in this country. As for the pros, length should only be one aspect of the game. I think Pinehurst illustrated this in '99 when the short game added so much interest to the competition in my opinion. Watching the pros decide whether to putt, chip, lob, etc.. was a lot of fun vs. having one standard shot.

[aclayman]

Daniel- Did they do all those changes at once? It seems that the changes have come as a direct result of tigers 97' victory.

Ed g- Is it possible that those routings were chosen to specifically reduce walking and simutaneously increase cart revenue?
I know that was my first impression of San Juan Oaks
Also, the link to Darkhorse will show you the boast that archie Kieth Foster(?) has conquered the design flaws of these "classic" courses by using multiple tees and alternate landing areas for those tees, supposedly challenging the hack and the primodonna.

[Tim_Weiman]

Patrick:

Yes, I'm aware of the reasons Cypress Point dropped out of the Crosby.

I interpreted your question as a request to speculate on how the club might have addressed architecture/technology issues if other factors didn't encourage the club to drop out of the tournament.

Along those lines, it's hard to speculate without having insight into how key decision makers at the club feel about the subject we've been discussing.

However, it seems pretty obvious that the folks at CP do not have the same ambition as the people at Augusta, i.e., they could care less about hosting the pros few a few days each year.

So, why would they want to change the golf course?

CP solved the architecture problem of how do you accomodate 100% of the golfers by deciding that catering to the one tenth of one percent most talented wasn't worth it.

[Daniel_Wexler]

aclayman:

Of course not.  But you suggested to Tom that the asterisk should start now when in reality this latest round of changes is, in the big picture of the layout's alteration history, nearly irrelevant.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
May I suggest you read Cornish and Whitten's The Architects of Golf or David Owen's The Making of the Masters for an excellent chronology of the changes at ANGC over the years. The Architects is tremendous overall resource for anyone interested in the history of golf architecture.

I'm still unclear as to why there would be asterick for any change in equipment - be it an advancement or decline. There is no asterick for those who won with the big ball or the small ball or more than 14 clubs.

[ed_getka]

Adam
  Since you've played San Juan Oaks, I'm curious to know if you've played Stevinson Ranch? I was unimpressed by San Juan Oaks other than the par 3's were interesting.

[RobertWalker]

Is there a single falsehood in the Faxon piece?

[Daniel_Wexler]

Nope.  The phrases

--"a ball like the Titleist Pro V1 has revolutionized the game more than any piece of equipment since the steel shaft"

--"There's no question that today's golf ball flies farther than its predecessors."

and

--"Pete Dye once wrote that terrific old courses, such as Merion, have become obsolete by the great lengths being achieved off the tee."

are all 100% accurate.