They don't mean anything..... anymore

[Patrick_Mucci]

Has the importance of prefered angles of attack been reduced by equipment that allows for improved trajectories ?

Has this aspect of improved equipment reduced the architectural significance of creating optional lines of play that incorporate risk-reward on the approach shot ?

[David_Tepper]

Yes.

Yes.

[Robert Thompson]

Strategically angled bunkers, like those employed by Doug Carrick on many of his Canadian courses, and similar to what Tom and George Fazio did at the National in Woodbridge, have been quite significantly impacted by the changes in equipment. Though Doug hasn't had to do it much yet, Fazio recently came back to the National (which opened in 1976), to move many of the bunkers that protect the angled approaches.
So, yes, Pat, I think this is a big issue for equipment. Must be an issue for Flynn bunkers -- though Wayne and Tom would know far more about that than I.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the technollogy reduces the advantage of prefered angles of attack, will there be a resurgence in narrow, angled greens with deep bunkers surrounding them ?

[TEPaul]

"Has the importance of prefered angles of attack been reduced by equipment that allows for improved trajectories ?

Has this aspect of improved equipment reduced the architectural significance of creating optional lines of play that incorporate risk-reward on the approach shot ?"

Pat:

Definitely to both. This is why it's so necessary to firm up green surfaces to a particular (very identifiable point) is so necessary today.

Nick Faldo had gotten no farther than the second hole of Merion East (he'd never seen the course before) when he made this same observation that you just did.

Again, the deal is to firm up the green surfaces to a certain idenifiable extent and that dials down the reliablilty of even great players just flying the ball from "out of angle" areas high over bunkers and such that protect various green areas and pins.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It's unbelievable, but, I believe you're correct.

Firming up green surfaces will restore the emphasis of positioning one's shot to maximize the prefered angle of attack.

The difficulty is embarking upon a process that could be correctly perceived by the membership as making the golf course more difficult.

It can be a very tough sell.

[James Edwards]

Which players is this supposed to be aiming at?

Last time I checked, no ones handicaps were coming down significantly on this side of the Atlantic to warrant a change?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Which players is this supposed to be aiming at?

Last time I checked, no ones handicaps were coming down significantly on this side of the Atlantic to warrant a change?

When old guys in their 60's are hitting the ball farther and higher then they did when they were in their 20's and 30's, and they're able to maintain or lower their handicaps when they should be going higher, it's time to examine the situation.

If you took those same individuals and returned them to their persimmon woods, forged irons and balata balls, you'd see handicaps jump substantially.[/color]

[Ron Kern]

Has the importance of prefered angles of attack been reduced by equipment that allows for improved trajectories ?

Has this aspect of improved equipment reduced the architectural significance of creating optional lines of play that incorporate risk-reward on the approach shot ?

Absolutely on both accounts - especially for the skilled player.  This in conjunction with maintenance practices that provide extremely receptive ground conditions and fast, flat putting surfaces have changed the game trememdously in the last decade.

Designing a golf course to be quite challenging, on a day to day basis, for the better player these days can result in a golf course close to unplayable for the recreational player.

[Tony_Chapman]

Which players is this supposed to be aiming at?

Last time I checked, no ones handicaps were coming down significantly on this side of the Atlantic to warrant a change?

When old guys in their 60's are hitting the ball farther and higher then they did when they were in their 20's and 30's, and they're able to maintain or lower their handicaps when they should be going higher, it's time to examine the situation.

If you took those same individuals and returned them to their persimmon woods, forged irons and balata balls, you'd see handicaps jump substantially.[/color]

Patrick - Now I know you aren't 60 and I'm pretty sure you can still hit it pretty good from what I saw at WH but are you disappointed that you can still hit it as good as you did 20 years ago? I hope not.

Or, maybe you would rather shoot 5 shots higher with persimmons, balatas and forged irons.[/color]

[James Edwards]

Tony, Agreed  

[Tony_Chapman]

Has this aspect of improved equipment reduced the architectural significance of creating optional lines of play that incorporate risk-reward on the approach shot ?

Wouldn't you say Wild Horse and Sand Hills both incorporate optional lines of play to great effect even with today's equipment? I think so.

Your thread on centerline hazards, Patrick, is spot on. Wouldn't the game -- especially with today's equipment -- benefit from WIDER corridors to play shots but randomly place hazards inside of those corridors to make any golfer think? I would also think that making golfers challenge these types of angles for preferred lines of play to make birdies on challenging green complexes would be the way to build a course now.

[Lou_Duran]

Pat,

I think that James makes a valid point.  For the pros and top amateurs, your thesis is correct.  I don't think that the rest of us are getting much bang for the buck from the new technology.  As to hitting it further at 60 than at 20 and 30, well, I guess I look forward to it in several years.

Firm greens, deep bunkers, and high rough would spell doom for the club golfer.  It would slow play down even more and make an already difficult game even more so.

I couldn't imagine playing Winged Foot- West under US Open conditions.  Essentially, there are two games of golf: the one 95%+ of us play which is plenty challenging the way it is, and the one played by professional and top amateurs which may call for temporarily tinkering with the course for the competitions, and/or rolling the ball back to a slower speed tournament model.  

[Brent Hutto]

Essentially, there are two games of golf: the one 95%+ of us play which is plenty challenging the way it is, and the one played by professional and top amateurs which may call for temporarily tinkering with the course for the competitions, and/or rolling the ball back to a slower speed tournament model.  

Lou states the reality of the situation, as I see it. My only quibble is that the golf ball specification could, from a technical point of view, be changed to one that reigns in those top 5% players to a noticable degree (perhaps 20 yards of carry distance with the driver) yet costs Lou maybe a couple yards with the irons and 5-10 with the driver and costs a short hitter like me virtually nothing. No need for persimmon woods, no need for changes to irons, no need to pretend it's still 1970.

I don't think such a rollback will ever happen and therefore I expect to see a bifurcation such as Lou suggests. But quite modest changes to the ball specification, backed up with a rational testing protocol (which past experience shows the USGA and R&A incapable of implementing) is all that's required to arrest the progression of carry distance increases for the strongest players. Stuff like outlawing every bit of technology developed in the last 30 years or limiting players to a half set of clubs is just plain silly and detracts from any serious discussion of dealing with change.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Chapman,

Thanks, but, mid-sixties it is.

Perhaps I might have maintained my handicap with persimmon, blades and balatas if I practiced a good deal more.

Don't forget that many courses have been lengthened over the last 20 years and especially in the last 5.

Ron Kern made a good point.

Flatter, softer putting surfaces almost eliminates prefered angles of attack.  Combine that with the golfer being 20-40-80 yards closer to the green and prefered angles of attack are almost useless.

I found a great example of a prefered angle of attack, even though it was with a short club, on the 3rd hole at Wild Horse.
If you hit to the right on your second shot, avoiding the carry of the centerline bunkers, you were left with a blind approach at an unfavorable angle.
If you risked the carry and were successful, you had an unobstructed view, and the cant of the green favored your approach shot.

I noticed a good number of blind shots from hollows at Sand Hills.  Properly placed shots were rewarded with visibility and prefered angles of attack, mis-hit shots were penalized.

When firm, contoured or pitched greens are incorporated into the mix, prefered angles of attack take on more significance.

But, when greens intended to take 4-irons are being approached with wedges, prefered angles of attack are like the dinosaurs, extinct.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Firm greens, deep bunkers, and high rough would spell doom for the club golfer.  It would slow play down even more and make an already difficult game even more so.

That sounds just like Garden City Golf Club.
Look at Ran's write up of the golf course.
Slow play and perceived difficulty hasn't happened at GCGC where play is expected at 3:30 or less per foursome.  
The membership at GCGC is no younger or older than other clubs.  It's the culture, that play shall be at pace.  It has nothing to do with the architecture and firm, fast conditions.

In the spring, when the rough is lush, deep and thick, play is slower, but warmer weather thins the rough nicely.

I applaud Ken Bakst for trying to create a "golfing" culture at Friar's Head, that's what makes the difference in great clubs.[/color]

I couldn't imagine playing Winged Foot- West under US Open conditions.  

Sure you could, you just couldn't do it from 7,400 yards.

Essentially, there are two games of golf: the one 95%+ of us play which is plenty challenging the way it is,

Nah, there's just one game we play, the problem is most golfers haven't figured out where to play from.

Challenge is a function of talent, work ethic and course management interfacing with architecture and maintainance.

If you play Winged Foot West from 7,400 it's beyond your abilities.  If you played it from 6,400 you might just love it, fast greens, rough and all.

and the one played by professional and top amateurs which may call for temporarily tinkering with the course for the competitions, and/or rolling the ball back to a slower speed tournament model.

It's almost exclusively about distance, and nothing more.[/color]  

[BCrosby]

The "angles" issue is something that Bobby Jones talked about a couple of times. His concern was that over-watering greens had made it possible to stop even long irons. Thus removing the strategic teeth of various angles.

Jones noted that the response was that more and more courses set pins closer and closer to green edges. He thought that was a bad idea. He thought getting greens firmer was the better solution.

Jones was right, of course. The core issue here is as much maintenance as it is distance/technology. (Lofted iron approaches after 350 yard drives are much less predictable into firm greens, but there is no question that they are a lot more predictable than medium iron approaches. Which to say that recent gains in distance only exacerbate the same issues that concerned Jones as far back as the '40's.)

The issue of the effectiveness of angles has been around for a very long time. In Jones's day in came up in the context of soft greens not in the context of humongous length. Today both are reasons for concern.

Bob  

[TEPaul]

"Which players is this supposed to be aiming at?"

James Edwards;

Unfortunately, that kind of question is way too prevalent at most golf clubs which makes doing this kind of thing so much more difficult to start with.

I don't really know why there's so much of a "them against us" kind of thing in golf clubs and amongst memberships---all I know is there is. It's generally a mentality amongst the less good players in any club that the better players are out to hurt or take advantage of the less good players somehow. That applies to a number of things in both architecture and maintenance practices, and firm and fast conditions is only another of them.

That's not what this is about, though. This is about making a golf course play more fun and definitlely more thoughtful and interesting for everyone---both good players and less good players.

The only problem here is to do that with firm and fast conditions and PARTICULARLY firmer conditions on green surfaces you're logically taking something away from both good players and less good players alike. But when you do that with both good and less good players alike you're also giving them something else they haven't had much of before that's is well worth it.

And that's the ground game option. Less good players have to understand that the ground game option is just something they'll need to avail themselves of more often, not the least reason being they just aren't capable of flying the ball onto some areas of greens that're firmer.

And for the good player they need to realize that they won't be able to rely on their aerial games to some sections of greens as often as they have been in the era where everything was so soft making aerial shots so reliable from most anywhere.

I think simply trying to figure out the balance or equilibrium between what's more or less reliable between two fairly distinct options is simply more interesting, fun and challenging and consequently more gratifying in the end.

But as Pat used to say----I could be wrong.

However, from the opinions of memberships of clubs that've dedicatedly returned to more firm and fast condtions both "through the green" and on the green surfaces it would seem to support that I'm right on this maintenance application from a playability stand-point.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Wow -

The demon technology is ruining the skill set of the game.  I am going to start a separate thread:

"Has the new technology and virtually no lowering of handicaps scores made us worse as players?"

In the meantime, let's ruminate about angles of attack.

"If the technollogy reduces the advantage of prefered angles of attack, will there be a resurgence in narrow, angled greens with deep bunkers surrounding them ?"

Yes, and we will have to become more Micklesonian with the Lob wedge on those dreaded short sides.  

So Yes Pat, Angles of Attack for this player will mean the same attention as yesteryear to pin position/where to miss if I decide to pull out the WMD (Driver) and blast away.  Pin Placement is my first strategy check upon arrival at the tee box.

Now, the wider dispersion of my misses today off the tee ball in my mind/ability is no different than having to work the more turnable balata ball of yesteryear to attack a pin.

It will be the architect's job to create these (Appropriate) short-side penalties & the greens committee's job to sell them to the course's Board/Membership.  Lost/forgotten in most of the discussion about technology ruining the game is the fact that technology has also enabled courses to more closely control conditions, green mowing heights, better fertilized/thicker roughs, etc.

TOC has wrestled with this scenario for the last 145 years as Old Tom Morris was endorsing the Gutta Percha vs. Allan Robertson's featherie.  Kind of ironic to see Old Tom in the NXT commercials.  

Nothing is more disheartening to a long player than to be consistently penalized for his ability to hit it long.  The course I belong to consistently hourglasses at 280 yards up the fairway, and the older membership doesn't really want to devote the resources to lengthening holes where it makes sense to do so.  Thus, I can play it with a 2 Iron or 3 wood off of every tee, and stunt my development as a player at another course that demands driver.

If I decide to hit WMD, I had better miss where I have got some real estate to stop it off of the wedge.  Also, I played in a scramble event from the whites there last week, and I really stunk the following day on my mid and short irons.

Thus, I posit that Angles of Attack mean more than ever.

JWK

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
It's unbelievable, but, I believe you're correct."

Well, Pat, like a lot of things I say that you can't seem to understand, it's too bad you didn't realize that long ago. You would've saved yourself a lot of time! I'm sort of like the "Midas Muffler" man, you know? You can pay me now or you can pay me more later. Time is money!  

[Lou_Duran]

Pat,

You choose two highly exclusive, out of the mainstream clubs, Garden City and Friar's Head, to argue one of my points.  No doubt that you guys have wonderful cultures at both places.  A visit to the nearby tournament course, Bethpage- Black, home of the five plus hour round is more of the norm.

As to Winged Foot, you could put me on the senior tees in an Open setup and I couldn't break 100.  With narrowed fairways, high rough, and those pushed-up, well-guarded greens firm and fast, par for me would be bogey.  The angle of attack wouldn't even enter my mind as I would be sufficiently preoccupied with getting the ball anywhere that I could find it and hit it again.  Admitedly, my handicap has gone up, but I can probably still play competitively with 90% of the golfers.

The Tour should get an award for truth in advertising when they say that those guys are good.  They are actually fantastic for reasons above and beyond modern technology.
By all means, restrict their technology; firm up the greens and hide the hole locations for them; set up temporary teeing areas at all sorts of angles and further back.  Let us mortals play under these conditions occasionally, but please don't have courses designed and maintained to tour professional standards.  I don't care if they shoot 64 on my home course nearly as much as me shooting 94 so that par is meaningful to a few.

As to playing the right tees, that is something I need to really think about.  In the past I've thought that as long as I could reach the large majority of holes in regulation from the backs, that that is where I should play from.  I still can, but my scores have really gone straight up hitting a bunch of longer irons and fairway metals.  What to do!

[TEPaul]

Difficult angles from some approach positions, or even difficult angles into pins from ideal approach positions should be a fact of legitimate golf and golf architecture and maintenance practices. On the latter----welcome to what's for years been termed "the sucker pin".

Do golfers today really want to take that away from golf and architecture too? God only knows why some golfers think they have some birth-right to shoot right at some pins with total impunity.

Just ask perhaps the best golfer ever, Jack Nicklaus, how many pins he went hunting for in the tournaments he won!

If that doesn't make the point, what can??  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
It's unbelievable, but, I believe you're correct."

Well, Pat, like a lot of things I say that you can't seem to understand, it's too bad you didn't realize that long ago. You would've saved yourself a lot of time! I'm sort of like the "Midas Muffler" man, you know? You can pay me now or you can pay me more later. Time is money!  

You're confused .....  again.
That was an advertisement for FRAM, not MIDAS.

But, keep it up, you are making progress.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You choose two highly exclusive, out of the mainstream clubs, Garden City and Friar's Head, to argue one of my points.  

How are they out of the mainstream and how are they exclusive ?[/color]

No doubt that you guys have wonderful cultures at both places.  A visit to the nearby tournament course, Bethpage- Black, home of the five plus hour round is more of the norm.
There's a reason for that, and it's not the one you think.

It's because golfers have decided to play a golf course that is well beyond their abilities.

If you have trouble swimming 4 laps in a pool, would you try to swim the English Channel ?  Or, in our neck of the woods, just the East River ?[/color]

As to Winged Foot, you could put me on the senior tees in an Open setup and I couldn't break 100.  

With narrowed fairways, high rough, and those pushed-up, well-guarded greens firm and fast, par for me would be bogey.  

Narrowed fairways reduce the ability to select angles of attack.

If the general membership at Winged Foot West can cope with the rough and pushed up well guarded greens, then so can you.[/color]

The angle of attack wouldn't even enter my mind as I would be sufficiently preoccupied with getting the ball anywhere that I could find it and hit it again.  Admitedly, my handicap has gone up, but I can probably still play competitively with 90% of the golfers.  The Tour should get an award in truth in advertising when they say that those guys are good.  The are actually fantastic for reasons above and beyond modern technology.

Those that don't use their mind on the golf course are condemned to lose their money.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

narrow, angled greens with deep bunkers surrounding them ?

Sounds like Pine Tree* to me, so why are they closed for a tear-up re-do?

It's called RE-GRASSING.

Perhaps you've heard of that process.[/color]

* yet another of the "type" of clubs that Lou refers to
What does re-grassing have to do with anything Lou has refered to ?

Isn't Pine Tree the golf course that you asked me to get you on to ?  The golf course that didn't permit unaccompanied guests ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags: