[John Kavanaugh]

Is there anything more strategic than calculating how much of a dogleg you can cut off...or the risk/reward benefits of launching a driver on a short par 4.  Can anybody deny that the game would be more fun if they could get that extra 20 yds off of the tee that seems so elusive.  If it would be more fun for you then why not everybody else.  What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...it is the core of greater enjoyment.

[Glenn Spencer]

Yes, I can honestly say the game would not be more fun. The continual wedge shots that one faces these days do not add any challenge to the game. The only time I have fun on the golf course is when I am gambling with my friends and drinking. I would like the other 98% to be spent being challenged to hit different clubs and face tough choices in strategy. These challenges and choices are where the fun of the game lies for me.

[Dave Bourgeois]

I guess if it's for the fun factor then one could move up a set of tees and get the same benefits.  

[DMoriarty]

The strategy you mention only makes sense in the context of a golf course which presents the golfer with exciting and interesting choices.  But if one hits the ball far enough then these moments of indecision and opportunities for excitement no longer exist.  

Which is more exciting . . . barely making a tough carry requiring a perfect swing and a little luck, or routinely and repeatedly hitting the ball 20-30 yards over the same carry?

[Brent Hutto]

Well for me moving up to the senior tees (I'm 45 but hit it shorter than some 65-year-olds) definitely makes the game more interesting and more strategic. Fairway bunkers are generally 15-40 yards beyond where I drive the ball from the men's tees and so they don't figure in the drive or second shot. I only very occasionally have to decide between cutting the corner of a dogleg close versus clubbing down to avoid going through the fairway on the other side. I certainly don't get many options to lay back off the tee to leave myself a full wedge shot.

From this I conclude that 25 more yards off the tee (carrying the ball about 220 instead of 190-something) would add greatly to my enjoyment. I would play the up tees all the time but they won't let me do it in the usual men's club games.

I've got to think that hitting it further makes the game more fun for almost anyone. Now if that means playing a 7,200 yard course to be able to use your length I can see where that sucks because it limits what courses you play plus it's further to walk plus it makes the courses more expensive and so forth and so on. Still, more length is fun to have and that's why the entire golf business has become geared to length.

[Craig Sweet]

"The continual wedge shots that one faces these days do not add any challenge to the game. The only time I have fun on the golf course is when I am gambling with my friends and drinking. I would like the other 98% to be spent being challenged to hit different clubs and face tough choices in strategy."

Glenn, if you were being serious, why don't you move to a course that challenges you?

I have got to believe that these alledged long hitters that render so much of yesterdays architecture obsolete,would just move on and find a course that provides them with a challenge. Why expect the course to make changes to accomadate YOUR game?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

I agree with Dave.

One must view the choices you presented in the context of the architect's intent.

There's a difference between choices that he purposely presented to you and choices he never dreamed of.

A case in point,

The 5th hole at Boca Rio is a terrific dogleg left, par 4, with a bunker at the elbow.

The options you cite, risk-reward, playing safe, are all there.

Imagine my shock when a fellow in his 50's, a 7 handicap decided to try to play up over the tall cypress trees and drive the green.   He executed his drive perfectly and ended up 30 yards from the green, which is about 100+ yards past the ideal shot as intended by the architect.

The green is an angled green that rewards those who play close to the dogleg, and penalizes those who play a safer shot off the tee.   From 30 yards, none of that mattered.
The architecture, the green, the surrounds were irrelevant.

And, that's what Dave, myself and others don't want to see, the incremental irrelevancy of golf course architecture.  

[CHrisB]

JakaB,
I find it very hard to believe anyone who says the game would be less fun with an extra 20 yards. By definition, 20 more yards means more options!

Imagine my shock when a fellow in his 50's, a 7 handicap decided to try to play up over the tall cypress trees and drive the green.   He executed his drive perfectly and ended up 30 yards from the green, which is about 100+ yards past the ideal shot as intended by the architect.

The green is an angled green that rewards those who play close to the dogleg, and penalizes those who play a safer shot off the tee.   From 30 yards, none of that mattered.
The architecture, the green, the surrounds were irrelevant.

And, that's what Dave, myself and others don't want to see, the incremental irrelevancy of golf course architecture.  

Patrick,
On the 5th at Boca Rio, what would have been the penalty to your playing partner had he not made the carry? You said he had to execute it perfectly to get it to 30 yards out.

If there is a penalty for not pulling it off, then it sounds to me that technology has created more options for this guy: either try to blast it over the corner and get a huge advantage, or club down off the tee and challenge the bunker to get the better angle in, or club down off the tee and play away from the bunker and take a worse angle in. From two options to three, again if there is a penalty for missing the heroic carry. If he's a 7 handicap, I wouldn't expect him to be able to pull it off every time.

But your point is well taken--on many holes the designer never would have believed possible some of the drives that can be hit today.

Dave,
If technology has allowed you to easily carry hazards that you struggled to carry before, and you want to recapture that thrill, then try to make the carry with a 3-wood! You are not bound to hit driver.

By the way, I would bet the following sentence has never been uttered before: "Man, I wish I was as short as you are so I could recapture the thrill of carrying that hazard!"  

The interesting thing to me about most of these distance discussions is that the problem people have with it is always seems to be in the context of someone else's game, not their own. No one ever says, "I cut the corner on #15 and I've never felt so guilty in my life!"  

Show me the guy who hits it a mile with "new technology" and then says "Guys, this is getting ridiculous--this game isn't even fun anymore I'm hitting it so long". If that was his mindset, you'd start to see him hit 5-iron - 5-iron into par 4s. The main fascination with the game has been and always will be to get it into the hole in the fewest amount of strokes, and anything that is perceived to help the golfer get to that end will probably be embraced.

[JESII]

What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...

Most every choice made when in the fairway contemplating an approach. As well as every short game decision. Probably more than half the decisions I make in a round.

[John Kavanaugh]

Yes, I can honestly say the game would not be more fun. The continual wedge shots that one faces these days do not add any challenge to the game. The only time I have fun on the golf course is when I am gambling with my friends and drinking. I would like the other 98% to be spent being challenged to hit different clubs and face tough choices in strategy. These challenges and choices are where the fun of the game lies for me.

Glen,

What the hell tees do you have to play at NCR to hit wedge all of the time...If I play tees at appox 6700 yds I will hit wedge around seven times including four par 5's..If I'm playing perfectly....I don't see that as boring.  If I play from 7300yds I may hit as many wedges but that is only because it is on my third shot on par 4's.   It is my opinion that 6700yds is not only not boring but more than most on this board can handle...and obviously more than the majority of the golfing world can handle.  Your contention that golf is boring is both dangerous, egotestical, undenfendable and generally bad for the future of the game.   I could be wrong and if I am tell me, how did you do at the mid-am last year at the Honors Course.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Is there anything more strategic than calculating how much of a dogleg you can cut off...or the risk/reward benefits of launching a driver on a short par 4.  Can anybody deny that the game would be more fun if they could get that extra 20 yds off of the tee that seems so elusive.  If it would be more fun for you then why not everybody else.  What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...it is the core of greater enjoyment.

John;

  How did you play #10 at Pine Needles?  (I know it's a par 5, but you get the idea)
#9 at Mid Pines?  Did anyone take driver, or try to take driver,  over the corner?  (for the record, I played a hybrid off the tee)

#12 at Tobacco Road?  I saw John Moore hit driver (safely) on Friday into the neck, and tried the same Sunday (as I just dropped the previous hole), and did not execute; my ball ended up in the bunker, and I had to blast out and approach with my third shot.  

[John Kavanaugh]

What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...

Most every choice made when in the fairway contemplating an approach. As well as every short game decision. Probably more than half the decisions I make in a round.

Ok, tell me...what strategic choices do you have from 120 yds.  How many choices do you have with a wedge in your hands....or can't you spin the ball.

[John Kavanaugh]

Is there anything more strategic than calculating how much of a dogleg you can cut off...or the risk/reward benefits of launching a driver on a short par 4.  Can anybody deny that the game would be more fun if they could get that extra 20 yds off of the tee that seems so elusive.  If it would be more fun for you then why not everybody else.  What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...it is the core of greater enjoyment.

John;

  How did you play #10 at Pine Needles?  (I know it's a par 5, but you get the idea)
#9 at Mid Pines?  Did anyone take driver, or try to take driver,  over the corner?  (for the record, I played a hybrid off the tee)

#12 at Tobacco Road?  I saw John Moore hit driver (safely) on Friday into the neck, and tried the same Sunday (as I just dropped the previous hole), and did not execute; my ball ended up in the bunker, and I had to blast out and approach with my third shot.  

Douglas,

After reviewing my play of each of the three holes mentioned I am happy to report that I hit driver on all three..(I was on vacation after all and playing match play)..I remember standing on the tee of the 12th at Tobacco Road and even Ran and the esteemed Mr. Gay questioning my choice of driver...a poor choice it might have been but a birdie all the same.  Ignorance is often rewarded with the spoils of our mortal lives..

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Is there anything more strategic than calculating how much of a dogleg you can cut off...or the risk/reward benefits of launching a driver on a short par 4.  Can anybody deny that the game would be more fun if they could get that extra 20 yds off of the tee that seems so elusive.  If it would be more fun for you then why not everybody else.  What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...it is the core of greater enjoyment.

John;

  How did you play #10 at Pine Needles?  (I know it's a par 5, but you get the idea)
#9 at Mid Pines?  Did anyone take driver, or try to take driver,  over the corner?  (for the record, I played a hybrid off the tee)

#12 at Tobacco Road?  I saw John Moore hit driver (safely) on Friday into the neck, and tried the same Sunday (as I just dropped the previous hole), and did not execute; my ball ended up in the bunker, and I had to blast out and approach with my third shot.  

Douglas,

After reviewing my play of each of the three holes mentioned I am happy to report that I hit driver on all three..(I was on vacation after all and playing match play)..I remember standing on the tee of the 12th at Tobacco Road and even Ran and the esteemed Mr. Gay questioning my choice of driver...a poor choice it might have been but a birdie all the same.  Ignorance is often rewarded with the spoils of our mortal lives..

John;
 
  Call me Doug  

  Thanks for the reply.  
#9 at MP--I could question that some; I didn't think the dogleg would have been easy to cut with driver.  (And, I was hooking my driver in the morning round all the way to Tennessee.    )  I seem to recall those trees being REALLY tall.  
#10 PN was kind of a no brainer.  Great hole.  
As for #12 at Tobacco, in hindsight, I can see the questionable nature of driver there, but I think I made the right play; I'm long enough to get into that neck, provided I turn it over enough.  What did others do there?
I heard of a lot of 3-woods there, but my feeling was, for me, 4 wood would have left me very far back, and I just dropped the previous hole to Remy and Jim.  

What do you think?

[DMoriarty]

Dave,
If technology has allowed you to easily carry hazards that you struggled to carry before, and you want to recapture that thrill, then try to make the carry with a 3-wood! You are not bound to hit driver.

Technology hasnt allowed me to do much of anything.
But set that aside for the moment . . . What on earth does my club selection have to do with whether or not  technology is ruining golf architecture??

By the way, I would bet the following sentence has never been uttered before: "Man, I wish I was as short as you are so I could recapture the thrill of carrying that hazard!"  

Well, I am not sure I have said that but I do prefer the thrill of playing with old technology to playing with new technology.  That is so long as those I play with/against do the same.

The interesting thing to me about most of these distance discussions is that the problem people have with it is always seems to be in the context of someone else's game, not their own. No one ever says, "I cut the corner on #15 and I've never felt so guilty in my life!"  

Show me the guy who hits it a mile with "new technology" and then says "Guys, this is getting ridiculous--this game isn't even fun anymore I'm hitting it so long". If that was his mindset, you'd start to see him hit 5-iron - 5-iron into par 4s. The main fascination with the game has been and always will be to get it into the hole in the fewest amount of strokes, and anything that is perceived to help the golfer get to that end will probably be embraced.

There are plenty of top players who realize that there is a problem, want it fixed, but will not martyr their score in the meantime.  Why should they?  

[Kyle Harris]

How does length make architecture more interesting...

..by definition.

If the hole wasn't hundreds of yards away, this game wouldn't be interesting.

In all seriousness though, length IS the fundamental challenge to the game.

Some holes place a premium on overcoming length as the best AND shortest means to a hole. Meaning that the optimum angle is the shortcut, but the shortcut is still fairly long - like getting to Long Island from anywhere.

Other holes give the option of short play and harder shots or easier shots with length. This "internal" length may not show on the card, but it can make a 6800 yard course play more like 7200 yards. See Rolling Green CC in Springfield, PA as a prime example.

[Doug Siebert]

Brent points out the answer to this and then promptly runs away from it.  If the architecture is better with longer tee shots, it is also better from shorter tees.  It is only ego (or league rules in Brent's case I guess) preventing it.

I keep meaning to play my home course from the 5900 yard senior tees sometime with my dad and his buddies instead of the 7100 tips, just for variety's sake.  I don't think the architecture is going to be more interesting, other than thinking about the greenside bunkers on several of the par 4s.  Mainly I've just always been curious how close I can come to shooting the 9 shots better that the rating/slope would suggest I should.

While I'm forced to admit that some holes have become better due to the longer ball (TOC #18 is my poster child for this) I think for every one of these there are probably 10s or 100s of holes where the opposite is true.  TOC #18 becoming better doesn't make it worth making TOC #14 worse.

[Brent Hutto]

A well designed course plays very similarly for someone hitting the ball like I do from the 6,000 yard tees and someone hitting it 20-25 yards farther and playing the 6,500 yard tees.

The only difference is that the short hitter does not experience the thrill hitting the ball and seeing it travel 230+ yards in the air, hanging up there for six or seven seconds of air time. However, that's a big difference. As Shivas keeps pointing out, hitting it far and sure is one of the elemental pleasures of the game. There are no tees I can play from to hit the ball as high, straight and far as you can.

Interfacing with the architecture is fun. Getting the ball in the hole is the ultimate goal. But don't sell short the pleasure of making the ball fly through the air. That's certainly why most kids who pick up a golf club decide to play the game.

[Evan Fleisher]

How does length make architecture more interesting...

..by definition.

If the hole wasn't hundreds of yards away, this game wouldn't be interesting.

In all seriousness though, length IS the fundamental challenge to the game.

Some holes place a premium on overcoming length as the best AND shortest means to a hole. Meaning that the optimum angle is the shortcut, but the shortcut is still fairly long - like getting to Long Island from anywhere.

Other holes give the option of short play and harder shots or easier shots with length. This "internal" length may not show on the card, but it can make a 6800 yard course play more like 7200 yards. See Rolling Green CC in Springfield, PA as a prime example.

That is al why the USGA course slope and rating calculations are based about (a guess here guys, be gentle) 65-75% on the length from a given set of tees...and ALL other strategic elements such as fairway slope, width, distance to rough lines, distance to tree lines, bunker placement, green size and speed, proximity to hazards, etc. make up the vast MINORITY of the calculations of a course's relative difficulty.

[JESII]

What strategic choices in golf don't center around length...

The low handicapper should be thinking about which side of the hole the ball should end up on. What will the firmness of the green do to effect getting the ball to that spot? What can he do with trajectory to help it get there? Does he want it to stop quickly or take a couple of bounces forward?

The higher handicapper should think about the greatest margin for error to get the ball down in 3 from where he is. He should also have at least two clubs he can hit from that distance so as to handle different green complex arrangements such as tiered greens, bunkers that must be avoided at all costs, backstops etc...
Most every choice made when in the fairway contemplating an approach. As well as every short game decision. Probably more than half the decisions I make in a round.

Ok, tell me...what strategic choices do you have from 120 yds.  How many choices do you have with a wedge in your hands....or can't you spin the ball.

[Andy Hughes]

Imagine my shock when a fellow in his 50's, a 7 handicap decided to try to play up over the tall cypress trees and drive the green.  He executed his drive perfectly and ended up 30 yards from the green, which is about 100+ yards past the ideal shot as intended by the architect.

Pat, imagine CB Mcdonald's shock when his kid drove the first green at NGLA, quite a bit beyond what the architect intended as the ideal shot. It happens, and clearly has happened for quite some time.
It says a lot for the hole at Boca Rio that a difficult shot executed perfectly paid off with a nice reward.  Isn't that a part of strategic design?  Presumably there would have been a price to play for taking so bold a line if the shot had not been executed perfectly?

[Tom Huckaby]

JK and others:

Regarding length, I believe Dave M. makes a very good point - what good are hazards when one can bomb over them with little consideration?  What fun is that?  And for those who answer just move back a set of tees or hit three wood or whatever, I'd say:

a) this continual moving back is what's killing golf, forcing courses to get longer and longer and longer; and

b) it just plain sucks if one has to abandon driver to bring back the challenge and thrill - because yes, hitting a long drive is one of the great joys of the game.

But this can and has been argued and beaten to death.  Neither side seems willing to budge.

But I ask you all to consider the effect of ACCURACY in this.  Because for me, well... even with the best modern equipment, I haven't reached the point where I'm too long for any course.  I'd venture to say I am in the vast majority there.  So these arguments are really just theoretical.

BUT... the modern driver is just so darn easy to hit STRAIGHT - or at least, mis-hits are not NEARLY as bad as they were with persimmon - that I've found that all club choice previously made for accuracy reasons is now gone.  That is, I hit driver on ever non par three hole no matter what - they are so forgiving, why the hell shouldn't I?  The driver is my straightest club.

And I'd venture to say I am in the majority there as well.  Man straight driving used to be a skill and a huge advantage for those who could do it - that's just not the case any more at all.

In any case, in the persimmon era and prior, club choice was always an issue - if a hole was tight, one had to really think hard about what club to choose.  I miss that.

Thus I too have gone the hickory route.  Oh, I doubt highly I will use these 100%, as I too enjoy competition, and it's just not a fair fight with these against modern stuff.  And though I am the very beginning of this experiment, I will say that so far, the club choice issue is back - my hickory brassie is pretty darn tough to hit straight, and the mis-hits are brutal.  So on a tight hole darn right I have to think long and hard about club choice.  To me, this is fun and refreshing.

Of course those using throw-back clubs will always be a tiny minority.  But hopefully you can understand a little better why some choose to do this.

TH

[Andy Hughes]

it just plain sucks if one has to abandon driver to bring back the challenge and thrill - because yes, hitting a long drive is one of the great joys of the game.

And frankly, the challenge and thrill is gone for most of us, because  of our new drivers.

C'mon, how many of us are truly so long now that that challenge and thrill is gone?
Are there really that many classic holes that have lost their challenge for the majority of golfers because of new drivers/balls?
Are there that many hazards that 10 years ago were true hazards but today most people just 'bomb over' them with no sense of thrill?
 

[Andy Hughes]

Thus I too have gone the hickory route.

Tom, good for you. I think that is a great decision and I hope you find the game more fun that way.

[Sean_A]

Thanks for the reply.  
#9 at MP--I could question that some; I didn't think the dogleg would have been easy to cut with driver.  (And, I was hooking my driver in the morning round all the way to Tennessee.    )  I seem to recall those trees being REALLY tall.  
#10 PN was kind of a no brainer.  Great hole.  
As for #12 at Tobacco, in hindsight, I can see the questionable nature of driver there, but I think I made the right play; I'm long enough to get into that neck, provided I turn it over enough.  What did others do there?
I heard of a lot of 3-woods there, but my feeling was, for me, 4 wood would have left me very far back, and I just dropped the previous hole to Remy and Jim.  

What do you think?

Doug

I tried driver, 3 wood and 7 wood off the tee at TR's #12.  None of these worked, I bogeyed it everytime and each time I hit the tee shot exactly as planned.  The first time Gracely gave me bad advice, he said the bunker on the far side of the fairway wasn't reachable.  The second time I hit 3 wood, wrong club, straight into the bunker.  The last time I hit 7 wood.  This left a choked 6 iron approach.  I hit the green but the ball strangely stayed high on the right side.  A tough two putt which I didn't pull off.  I would certainly hit 7 wood again as I think under normal conditions (the greens were a bit soggy) a ball hitting that green has to slide down to the center.

I can't remember #9 at Mid Pines.  Was that the hole I hit that sling hook from the left pines?  The green is sort of built up and the fairway runs right to left.

#10 at Pine Needles wasn't one of my favourites.  I didn't care for the left bunker on the turn of the dogleg.  It just seemed to take away any chance of trying to sling the ball around the corner to get home in two.  The hole plays longer than the yardage suggests.  I could still hit driver to the right, layup with 7 wood and wedge home.  

Ciao

Sean

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()