Recommended Shape.

[JESII]

There are frequently threads that discuss the negative aspects of golf equipment technology. I am not a believer in supressing innovation, however I cannot help but notice the fact that several features of golf courses have become irrelevant to longer players. One very important aspect of this technology is that balls do not spin nearly as much and therefore are much more difficult to shape one way or the other. It seems rare that a high caliber player is forced to shape his tee shot to get it in the fairway, why is that?

My question is: What can architects, or club green committees, do to create a situation in which top players must shape their drives the proper way to get the ball in the fairway?

I noticed at Shinnecock that many of the fairways are set at an angle to the tee (1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 15 perhaps others to a lesser degree) effectively making the fairway considerably smaller to a straight ball off the tee.

I seem to remember at Oak Hill East that there were several holes with significant trees relatively close to the tee that performed the same function, forcing a shaped drive. I would appreciate some help as to whether or not my memory serves me properly in this regard as its been 7 or 8 years.

In general I am in favor of deforestation at most courses, but I do feel that this concept of working the ball around a large tree in the beginning portion of a drive would help bring a bit of the "skill" so often spoken about here.


Thanks for responses

[Ted Kramer]

Interesting point.
I see most Tour guys choose 3wd over the trees more often than driver around the tress . . .

-Ted

[JESII]

Interesting point.
I see most Tour guys choose 3wd over the trees more often than driver around the tress . . .

-Ted

Can't disagree, I actually don't have a problem with that because at least they made a choice between two options. The guy that is just as comfortable working the ball around the tree will gain an distance advantage so that's fine with me.

[Jason Topp]

13th at Augusta

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Those guys can still shape the ball if they want to but probably not as easily as the old days with the much higher spinning balls they used to use.

But hopefully you've been following some of these letters the USGA has put out in the last three weeks. They say the thing they are looking at for possible new I&B rules and regs is the spin rate of the golf ball and perhaps new rules for the "moment of inertia" of clubheads, particularly woods. Both those factors would logically increase the movement of the ball.

[JESII]

13th at Augusta

Have not seen the hole in person, but that concept is what I'm driving at.
My question about that hole though is, if there were no trees through the fairway, would there still be the urgency to move it right-to-left? Is there something else about the design that would keep long hitters from simply blasting it up there and hitting to the green with a long iron.

p.s. I am not referring to Tiger and Phil when I say long hitters, I am thinking about good amateurs-to-run of the mill pros. Guys that hit the ball anywhere from 275 - 300.

[JESII]

Tom

I've not paid close enough attention to those letters, simply getting a grasp of what they contain, and it certainly is good news.

[Brian_Sleeman]

In the case of the 13th at Augusta, sure, the trees on the right play a role in forcing guys to curve it around the corner (ditto the pine straw), but even if they weren't there it seems like a lot of guys would choose to lay up simply because the lie is so uneven (as is the case when they do hit it up there and catch a clean lie with a clear line at the green).  In that case, curving it around the corner gets you further down the fairway with less yardage and a more even lie.  If the trees were gone, you'd still see guys laying up simply because of the slope of the hill, and so putting some shape on it would give those players a distinct advantage.

I guess the answer depends on the type of course you're referring to: obviously on a more links-like course (ie Shinnecock) the answer would be to slope the fairways so that shots played high and straight would be more likely to ricochet off of the fairway (and into something more penal than today's tour rough, like a deep bunker).

Riviera was a great example of a place where trees forced you to work the ball well off the tee to succeed - witness Corey Pavin's victories there in the early 90's.  It seems like today the longer hitters are just blasting it right over the corners there, though.  Maybe something closer to the tee that still looked like it should be there...?

[Andy Doyle]

I think one of the things with modern equipment that may have reduced the necessity to curve the ball off the tee is the trajectory with modern drivers and golf balls.  I used to watch the pros' drives take off low and rise in the distance - a classic line drive with back spin.  The lower trajectory probably required shaping the shot around trees.

Today, I see players hit the ball so high right off the tee they can take the ball directly over trees that used to be obstructions.  The Eisenhower Tree on ANGC #17 is a good example - not even close to being in play for these guys - they just blast the ball directly over it.

AD

[JESII]

Is there something negative about having a tree close enough to the championship tee that it would be virtually impossible to clear?

There are logistical issues for sure, it is probably not cheap to move a 100 year old oak tree for example .

Seriously though, what is the downside of taking this strategy into consideration when routing a course or planting trees on a course?

Also, what is thought of the diagonal fairways at Shinnecock? This seems like a good strategy because the championship tees could be set a significant angle, and that angle could be reduced as you move up each set of tees so that the front tees have very little if any to deal with.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I am thinking of the 17th at Wentworth's West Course.  It's a long par 5 (about 580 yards) played to a fairway curling and climbing to the left where a good drive lands, the fairway sloping to the right.  There are tall trees encroaching on the left and an out-of-bounds in the trees only a few yards off the fairway.  I don't think I've seen anybody in recent years hold the ball on the middle of the fairway with a gentle right-to-left draw.  They either hit straight and run out of fairway down the hill on the right or duck-hook out-of-bounds on the left.  

Certainly in former times, when a wooden-club shot was almost obligatory for the second shot on any par 4 over 420 yards, courses such as Swinley Forest, St George's Hill, Little Aston, Beau Desert and Prestbury required the good golfer to be able to move the ball left-to-right and right-to-left both from the tee and from the fairway.  Nowadays all second shots seem to be played with a wedge, whatever the length of the hole.

[JESII]

Wentworth #17 would be a great example of the reverse dogleg style I asked about last week, and the concept clearly also works for the intent of this thread, as the guys in the Match Play seem to be content with the right rough and take their chances on a lie that would allow them to reach in two. I can't think of a potential deterrant to this blast it out into the rough philosophy for that particular hole.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I think what the hole does under tournament conditions today is to encourage the use of the driver for most of the players.  Stray too far to the right and there is no way of getting on the green in two, however.  People such as Cabrera get on with two iron shots!

[JESII]

Amazing to me what some of those guys can do, without question a different game.

[A_Clay_Man]

My question is: What can architects, or club green committees, do to create a situation in which top players must shape their drives the proper way to get the ball in the fairway?
Thanks for responses

Jes- Is this a trick question?
Why would anybody want to limited the definition of a fine shot, based on it's shape?

If the field were open, lacking definition, with randomly dispursed features, whose to decide ahead of time, what is the proper shot, but the golfer?

Just the asking of the question, seems to have led to the conclusions which took GCA down the wrong road post WWII.

[JESII]

Adam

It was not intended as a trick question, but I think I can see what you mean. I want to stress that I am only asking about top players, presumably playing from the back tees. The concept has been formulated by the frequent discussions about how Tour players simply smash the ball as far as they can with little regard for accuracy, or "skill" in William Flynn terminology.

You ask:

"Why would anybody want to limited the definition of a fine shot, based on it's shape?"[/color]

This sounds like a trick question to me. Proper shape is a huge...huge...gigantic component of a "fine shot". Sure, I can try to draw a 5-iron a back-left pin and come over the top, start it in the middle of a left greenside bunker, slice it to 10 feet from the hole and think I hit a good shot, but don't expect someone who understands what a good shot is to compliment it. That is called luck.


"If the field were open, lacking definition, with randomly dispursed features, whose to decide ahead of time, what is the proper shot, but the golfer?"

The proper shot is not synonymous with the chosen shot. the smart player will only hit shots he is capable of, he will choose one of those. The proper shot is the one which gives the greatest chance of a favorable outcome with relatively low risk of penalty (ie a fade on a dogleg right, a running approach to a back pin etc...). In that open field you mention, the features are never as randomly dispersed as you think because they mean something different to me than they do to you. I'll have to "interface" with them in a different manner (I hope they're gentle   ). You will have to analyze those features and determine your best course of action. This determines your "proper shot". This is not to say you can't be successful without perfect execution, it is afterall golf.


"Just the asking of the question, seems to have led to the conclusions which took GCA down the wrong road post WWII."

Please expand, I'm not arguing this I'm just curious what you mean.

[Tom_Doak]

I think diagonal fairways are great for shotmaking off the tee, although they have to be reasonably wide ... narrow diagonal fairways are a crapshoot.  Even the pros couldn't hold the 9th fairway at Shinnecock.  Also, it's difficult to set up a hole like that so you can pick your line correctly ... I don't think blind diagonals are that much fun.

As far as trees forcing a shot to draw or fade off the tee, I'm generally against that ... most golfers couldn't hit a draw off the tee on purpose regardless of the stakes.

[JESII]

Tom

Not sure how feasible it is, but my intention with a tree in close proximity to the tee, shaping the drive, was for it to only effect the championship tee. If there is 40 or 50 yards between that and the next tee up, the tree I have in mind would not bother most players but would increase the degree of difficulty for the back tee players.

Thanks for the comments about the diagonals, I'm trying to get my hands around the concept and you make some good points.

Re: #9 at Shinnecock, wasn't the primary problem with hitting that fairway (at the normal distance, not at 110 where some players drove it) the fact that the prevailing wind goes towards the 18th green and that week it was going more towards the clubhouse?

[Jeff Goldman]

Don't the reverse cants of the Olympic Club make shot shaping important for good players, at least when the course is running?