Is David Eger Wrong on Major Setups?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Just wondering what everyone thinks about these comments in his interview, in light of the discussions on Merion's greens and the recently-concluded Masters. It seemed like the Masters proved him correct, but if so I don't understand this talk about Merion (gravity). (Of course, doesn't ANGC consult pros for their setups? In which case, do you suspect Eger's fellow pros side with the 10-handicapper and not Eger?!)

Where in your opinion is Eger right, where is he wrong, and why? (Interview dates to 1999.)

I raise this because it seems to me the "intersection" of architecture and professional play, far more so than in the past, has become a knife's edge with virtually no margin for error between "fair" and "ridiculous" setups, driven by a fear the pros will eat the course alive.  How much of this is down to Eger's comments regarding the people who set up the courses?

Thanks,
Mark

GCA: How has your skill as a player helped you set up a course for the U.S. Open or a PGA Tour event?

      DE: There is a tendency for people who don't play extremely well to over estimate the abilities of the TOUR players. TOUR players are very, very good but two things they have a difficult time overcoming are strong winds and gravity. By playing extremely well I mean hitting all types of shots comparable to the players in question. Someone possessing a single digit handicap who averages hitting 230 yard drives and takes 24 putts per round cannot identify with today's TOUR player anymore than can a ten or 15 handicapper. Clearly playing comparable to them and playing the courses several times helped me understand the shot requirements. I never purposely set up any course, hole or shot that I was unable to play successfully myself. It amazed me during the 1991 Tour Championship that players would continually aim for flagsticks, ignoring the contour of greens, trying to get their ball close to the hole. Being a little off at the US Open or the big TOUR events (TPC, Memorial or Tour Championship) usually resulted in a missed green and a difficult recovery. I researched the architect's design philosophy and blended it into the set up. Hole locations were never determined without considerable time putting when the greens were their fastest from all angles to make certain they were fair. Putts would usually be straighter than believed and easier than was the approach shot. I didn't mind so much that a shot 20 feet from the hole was considered good. Frequently the 20 foot putt was easier to hole that way. I was forever trying to open up fairways so players would use drivers more.

[JESII]

I first realized the mindset of Tour player in regards to fairness when I played a tournament round with Eger and on a 217 to the center par three the pin was way in the back of a long green making it 230 - 235 and he deemed it unfair. Keep in mind this was on a very firm course with an open front to the green so a 190 low shot or a 205 - 210 normal shot would have been appropriate. This told me about the tour pros idea of "fair" because he was setting up golf courses at the time (or maybe recently separated from that post), and would occasionally take heat for something or other being unfair.

On top of my disagreement with him on this particular hole, he said he thought both 9 and 10 at Shinnecock were unfair...so he and I have slightly different views on the subject...then again, I never had to set up an entire golf course for that type of tournament and if I ever do you can bet I'll err on the side of "fair"...

[Mark Bourgeois]

What do you think of his comment that gravity is, along with strong wind, the most effective defense?

Seems like he's in the minority on that one, for example "graduated rough."

On the other hand: Hoylake 2006 was about gravity, wasn't it?

[BCrosby]

Jim - I'm not sure I follow. Why did David think 235 to the pin was unfair under firm conditions?

Bob

[JESII]

Mark,


I didn't see enough of Hoylake to say, but Pinehurst would seem to be an illustration of gravity as a line of defense. The USGA has seemingly moved more towards those chipping areas in the 10 years or so since putting Pinehurst back on the rota...I believe Pinehurst hosted the Tour Championship prior to the US Open and during DE's stint with the PGA Tour.



Bob,


I don't know other than he thought it was too far to play a par three in those days...1998. I disagreed then, and obviously still do. I would bet his upper limit on par threes has risen in this time, as has that hole in particular, now 232 to the center...

[BCrosby]

Jim -

Odd. Even in '98 that was only a 3i/4i, assuming they flew it (stupidly) to the pin.

Today it's a 6i, max.

Odd.

Bob

[Chris Cupit]

Jim -

Odd. Even in '98 that was only a 3i/4i, assuming they flew it (stupidly) to the pin.

Today it's a 6i, max.

Odd.

Bob

Bob,

232 flat at sea level is NOT a normal 6 iron for a tour player and 232 is certainly NOT a "6 iron max".   Are you saying the average tour pro would hit 6 or 7 iron pretty normally at 232?  What would they hit at 175--PW??

They are very, very good and at times can hit the ball incredibly far but you are way overestimating how far they carry a normal 6-iron.  There certainly are tmes, downwind, downhill and firm where 6 or 7 may be perfect for 232 but not flat, all carry and at sea level

In fact, I bet a normal 6 iron from a tee (which goes farther than from the fairway) would be comfortably hit by a tour player between 180-190 yards.

Eger was right about you guys

[Chris Cupit]

Actually, I, too, am guilty of giving the tour player too much credit for how far they hit it.  I think 170-185 is about a "normal" 6 iron on tour.  

[TEPaul]

I think David Eger's set up philosophy is really good. His ideas on gravity effecting tour pros is excellent as well and he's the only one I've seen mention that so specifically. I think Eger means gravity not just on and around greens but also "through the green" (Sully, this should interest you with HVGC, a course Eger knows well, by the way, since he won a couple of Lynnewood Halls).

The only thing I don't agree with is his feeling that a 235 yard par 3 is unfair for the upper level in 1999. There were par 3s back in the 1920s longer than that and they weren't considered unfair. Of course a concept like expected GIR was not so much considered back then, if at all.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Isn't that gravity concept a neat one? I thought to Hoylake, Shinnecock, and Pinehurst, but it's nice to see it brought up as a tactic for courses that are not links or "links-y."

What are other examples where gravity could be used as a defense against the pros? It sounds like the powers that be don't buy it for Merion...

The comment regarding the par 3 IS odd, given the apparent option to run up the ball and Eger's comfort with calling an approach that leaves a 20-foot putt a good shot.

Perhaps there was something to that hole we're missing, or maybe it really was a timing / "evolution in Eger" deal.

Either way, I prefer to accept the comment from the interview and discard that one: a big thumbs up for someone who espouses a belief that pros should be forced to think through their approaches and that the setup should provide for "self-immolation" (nothing to blame but their own failure to THINK through their options).

PS Eger endorses the Carthage Club assuming its deployment of gravity and strong winds as defenses.

[BCrosby]

Chris -

I don't know any more about how for pros hit it than what I am told on TV. I hear them saying often that pro X is hitting a 190 6i. I no longer give it a second thought.

Given Jim's example was of a firm green that required a run-up shot landing about 190 yards, that's where I get 6i.

The only time I groan anymore is when they say Tiger or someone is hitting his stock 7i 190 yards.

But it's all hearsay to me. That's just what I've gleaned from the TV guys.

Bob

P.S. David's is another misuse of the term "unfair". What he really means - and what would be accurate - is that he thinks 235 is too hard.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I think by gravity golf David Eger probably means both on greens and "through the green" shots and strategies.

Either way with real "gravity golf" a pro or anyone else needs to look more carefully at the course, its architecture (slopes and contours) and really engage with it realizing his golf ball will not be so likely to end up where he hits it.

As gravity golf applies to greens it's hard to find a course where this is more magnificently in effect than ANGC, particularly this year (the ball was capable of filtering all over the place with that green surface firmness combined with green speed and the pros really did need to plan for and play the slopes and contours with their approach shots..

As gravity golf applies to "through the green" shots a course like HVGC is hard to top.

I think I still have DM's email and I'll email him and ask him what-all he did mean by "gravity".

[TEPaul]

"But tell me more about "through the green." Do you mean things like hogbacks and ridges?"

Whatever, up, down, sideways etc, big scale, small scale, whatever----anything in fact that will make the ball move on the ground and filter. This is the way to make golfers really engage with the ground and architecture to determine----"If I hit it there where will in end up?"

Essentially golf just doesn't get much better than that for thinking and planning and strategy and cool challenge in both thought and execution. But that's just the half of it. In the old days the idea of uneven lies was a prized factor in golf and golf architecture. It was in fact, Nature's own way of applying graduated elements of "penalty" and applying it semi-randomly (Nature's way).

On some courses, best example probably being TOC there was just so much of it and so close coupled that it was not much more than a random factor. In a real way this pretty much took care of this bullshit idea of constantly producing "fairness" in golf and golf course architecture somehow. This is when Nature held its appropriate place in golf and golf architecture.

This is the golf and golf architectural realm of the perspicacious mind and philosophy of a Max Behr!  

In this context it is most appropriate to read today's initial quotation on Geoff Shackelford's website.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think someone recently posted that the Shotlink data puts the average 7 iron on Tour at 165, +/-.

Also, Oakmont will have a 288 yd. par 3, I believe.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
 
You're exactly correct regarding my intentions for the meaning of "gravity."  It was more the slopes and firmness of fairways such as several at Huntingdon Valley, Olympic Oakmont or Pine Valley than greens.  Too often, the USGA  establishes fairway edges that don't take into account "gravity."  No ball is able to stay in the fairway and eventually comes to rest in the rough. This was the case with several holes (4, 9 and 17) at Olympic (not to mention the hole placement on #18 Friday).  There simply isn't any way to get a ball to come to rest in these fairways except for a radically curved tee shot whose spin counters the fairway slope (right to left spin on a fairway that slopes left to right, etc.).
 
David"

[TEPaul]

I might add that this seems to be a problem on too many of these "chipping areas" that courses are estabishing on some classic era courses. Too often they seem to cut them only down somewhere on the declining slope from the green. What they need to do is cut them low into the low points and back up into the inclining slope on the far side so balls will come to rest in the chipping area low cut and not in the rough. Otherwise it pretty much defeats the purpose of doing them at all.

[JESII]

Yes but Tom, did you bother to ask David about the 230 yard par three being too much...



Sean,

I don't know Beau Desert, but I would guess the main issue with setting up Olympic for the US Open is that the rough is so high when the balls rolls from one side of the fairway into the rough on the other it just doesn't make sense.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Is the supreme test of golf that which tests the ability of the golfer to control his ball, in both speed and direction, after it makes first contact with the ground?  IMHO gravity (and strong winds) are not completely appreciated in this respect.

Mark

[JESII]

Is the supreme test of golf that which tests the ability of the golfer to control his ball, in both speed and direction, after it makes first contact with the ground?  IMHO gravity (and strong winds) are not completely appreciated in this respect.

Mark

This is a great question/statement...really really great.

[JESII]

And that is where the real shotmaker shines...frankly, that can be more evident in soft conditions when you see a player take out a nine-iron from 120 and chip it so as not to spin it back too far...

[Doug Siebert]

I think someone recently posted that the Shotlink data puts the average 7 iron on Tour at 165, +/-.

Also, Oakmont will have a 288 yd. par 3, I believe.

How does Shotlink know what club they hit?

I have seen sometimes where the guys on TV will say so-and-so is hitting a 7 iron, and then you see a story about it the next day and the pro will be quoted saying "I had a perfect 6 to the hole".

[TEPaul]

"IMHO gravity (and strong winds) are not completely appreciated in this respect."

Mark:

Of course they aren't, particularly in America. I don't know that it's a matter of being under appreciated in the sense of golfers not liking it, it's probably more a matter of not understanding it very well since most Americans haven't seen that much of it in the last half century and consequently aren't very good or very intuitive about playing it.

My hope and even my sense tells me it will be generally appreciated if it's more frequently offered simply because it's inherently so interesting and so much fun.

Initially some may even complain about it (F&F) labelling some of it unfair and such.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom, I really like your thoughts re gravity tee to green. This is what's really unappreciated. Courses like Prairie Dunes, Barnbougle, and Durban remind us that moguls in the line of play shouldn't be restricted to skiing.

Other courses not mentioned where tee to green gravity is used to perfection ought to include Kawana and Yale.

[Ally Mcintosh]

bob, chris,

the average distance hit by a 5 iron on the european tour last year was 184 yards... tv guys live in dream land...

...i learned those two "facts" (though long suspected the latter one) just the other week...

[Doug Siebert]

I find it really difficult to believe that an average PGA Tour player is only hitting a 7 iron 165, and Euro tour players are only hitting a 5 iron 184!  I don't really believe I'm a club longer than the average pro on both tours.  I'm trying to figure out if that's really possible or if it is as bogus as the TV propagated lie that the pros all hit a 5 iron 230.  But I guess its possible if you make a few assumptions...

I'll assume these distances are how far they actually hit the ball, not how far they pulled the club from....maybe they are not making perfect contact as often as we've been led to believe?  That could account for a few yards.  If you include my mishits I might have trouble matching those numbers those numbers with my 5, and maybe even my 7.

I guess another factor, especially on the Euro tour, could be conditions.  If I tried to figure out what my average distance with a 5 iron was, I'm sure I'd get a higher number hitting 20 shots on a calm day versus hitting 10 shots into a 25 mph wind and 10 shots with a 25 mph wind -- because I'll hit a 3/4 arm swing punch to take the spin off it and keep it from ballooning, and probably lose 20 yards more against the wind than I'd gain going with the wind.  The Euro tour probably sees a fair number of days with temperatures below 60F, which could further hurt distances there.

Depending on how they measure things, if they measure you chopping out of the rough and losing distance on the one hand and getting flyers on the other it can make the numbers get further out of whack.