[Patrick_Mucci]

impede the architect's efforts to produce a challenge ?

[Jerry Kluger]

It was recently proven that firm greens remain a challenge no matter how high the players hit the ball.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jerry,

The significance of the angle of incidence can't be denied.

In addition, how many courses have rock hard greens ?
It's rare, the exception rather than the rule.

Thus, the question remains

[Jim Franklin]

How many tour players play with "lower center of gravity" irons? I mean the real player enhancement clubs. Not many. The players that need those clubs, hence the true high handicappers, are still not good enough to have an effect on the architects' plans. IMHO.

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
I would say no; expert players have always been able to hit the ball high, and in fact spend a lot of time trying to control their trajectory and hit it lower, at least with irons.

Lesser players gain the benefits from LCG weighting, but that only takes them so far.  They still have to make solid contact, be properly aligned, know and control distance, etc.  

My guess is that the best evidence would be the next time a diver goes into a pond on your course on a par three; there will be hundreds and maybe thousands of golf balls recovered.  The architectural challenge of water, for instance, remains a daunting one, despite club technology.  Ask Sean O'Hair.

[Mike Benham]

Throw in the characteristics of the low-spin modern golf ball, and does the higher launch angle negate the reduced spin which impede the architect's efforts to produce a challenge?

[Jim Franklin]

All I know is golf is still golf because all of the other four letter words were taken.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Throw in the characteristics of the low-spin modern golf ball

Also, the effect of lower COG of clubs can't be evaluated without also considering the fact that these clubs are often/usually/always paired with stronger lofts.  The net effect is that the lower COG is tempered somewhat by the lower loft for any given club.

[Pete Lavallee]

The significance of the angle of incidence can't be denied.

Patrick,

Do you have any data you'de like to share on the actual difference in angle of incidence that we are now experiencing?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The significance of the angle of incidence can't be denied.

Patrick,

Do you have any data you'de like to share on the actual difference in angle of incidence that we are now experiencing ?

Pete,

Don't tell me that you skipped physics 101.

Might I suggest boning up on the relationship between the angle of incidence and the angle of refraction.

In my limited experience I've noticed the PGA Tour Pros hitting Lob wedges from 80 yards, and not 2-irons.

But, maybe your experience is different.[/color]
 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I'm not sure what it does to the architect but I do know that my 22 degree hybrid goes a lot higher than my three iron, and it stops more quickly.  At 60 I can carry my tee ball  farther than I could twenty years ago.  It sure takes some bunkers out of play.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

This question is irrelevent unless the architect knows the media of the angle of refraction with a normal to the point of reflection and whether he's designing for a golf ball or a ray of light.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Patrick:

This question is irrelevent unless the architect knows the media of the angle of refraction with a normal to the point of reflection and whether he's designing for a golf ball or a ray of light.

Hey, Googlepus, you forgot to copy-paste the part about whether it's an African swallow or a European swallow!

[TEPaul]

No Sir, I'm not a googlepus, and I barely know how to find that site. I simply have a laser-beam like mind and an extraordinary way with words to boot.

Patrick:

I know you better than you know yourself, that's for sure. The only reason you posted this thread is last weekend you were out "interfacing" with architecture again. Does your wife know you do this?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Hopefully one of the A's will chime in and tell us how they look at it, but I think it's been ongoing for a long time. Look at the way Nicklaus hit the ball, that phenomenon came to everyone's attention 50 years ago. How far back do you have to go to find a time where higher trajectories were not a factor?

[Lloyd_Cole]

impede the architect's efforts to produce a challenge ?

Pat

I'm not sure about 'impede their efforts' but it might encourage cynicism on their part - What ground game? is not a stupid question, these days.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Patrick...no doubt about it..the increased angle of departure of the ball from a hybrid versus say a two iron, certainly makes it easier to hold the green.
Not only are the hybrids easier to hit from marginal lies, but the ball flight is so much more advantageous for holding greens.

For example let's say hole #12 at Garden City was 15 yards longer and required a 2 iron shot to the back right pin...can you imagine trying to stop a conventional 2 iron back there?
I think not, but with a hybrid a good player would not even give it a second thought...take dead aim...the same could be said for approach shots into #6 and11, which during the Travis were both 2 iron shots.
The reverse of that is trying to hit one of those bybids low under overhanging tree limbs...I have not figured out how to do that one!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...no doubt about it..the increased angle of departure of the ball from a hybrid versus say a two iron, certainly makes it easier to hold the green.
Not only are the hybrids easier to hit from marginal lies, but the ball flight is so much more advantageous for holding greens.

For example let's say hole #12 at Garden City was 15 yards longer and required a 2 iron shot to the back right pin...can you imagine trying to stop a conventional 2 iron back there?


I"ve been trying for years, unfortunately, I haven't been successful.

While I hadn't posed the question in the context of # 12, it's a perfect example.  You need length at 193 yards with the green elevated above its fronting surrounds and guarded by a bunker, yet, you need trajectory and/or left to right flight, due to the shallow nature of that section of the green and what lies beyond it.

Prior to low COG clubs, one had to take their chances with a great shot, or,  take the default option of hitting to the center of the green and facing a long putt.

Modern, low COG clubs have diminished the likelihood of taking the option.

This has to create the same dilema for modern architects.

How do they design the features to conspire to thwart a direct aerial assault ?

Should architecture, at some point in the round, force the golfer to encounter a LONG putt ?

Have low COG clubs undermined that effort ?[/color]

I think not, but with a hybrid a good player would not even give it a second thought...take dead aim...the same could be said for approach shots into #6 and11, which during the Travis were both 2 iron shots.

The reverse of that is trying to hit one of those bybids low under overhanging tree limbs...I have not figured out how to do that one!

I'm one of those dinosaurs that carry a 2-iron.

May I suggest a choked up 3-wood off your back foot for getting beneath the branches with sufficient distance.[/color]

[JMEvensky]

What's really sad about the Garden City example is that,even with 15 extra yards,a 208 yard 3-par is a practice tee 5-iron for tour pro's,maybe even 6 unless there's something else going on there(wind,elevation).A young tour pro would think you're nuts asking him whether his strategy would be playing at the center of the green.It wouldn't even register as an option.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

When we played last week...NO ONE  would have hit 6 iron into that hole!
But I do see your point, and Patrick is right, it does make the architects job more difficult...all the more need for firmer greens, and deeper rough off the fairways to make it a challenge?

[Brent Hutto]

Don't tell me that you skipped physics 101.

Might I suggest boning up on the relationship between the angle of incidence and the angle of refraction.

Mr. Mucci,

You must have meant "reflection" and not "refraction".

But it doesn't matter at all because the golf ball is not a beam of light and bounces at an angle substantially lower than that at which it arrives due to elastic-collision losses and the effect of spin.

But that doesn't really matter much because the players most architects are trying to challenge seldom use low CoG clubs anyway (at least by modern standards).

But other than that you make a valid point, Sir  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent Hutto & JMEvensky,

You can't view every golf course in the sole context of the PGA Tour Pro.

This thread has nothing to do with them and everything to do with the broad spectrum of golfers who populate clubs that architects are designing for.

I doubt that C&C or Tom Doak designed Hidden Creek, Friar's Head, Pacific Dunes and Sebonack for PGA Tour Events.

But, it is interesting to note that even the PGA Tour Pros are hitting 5 woods, 7 woods and 9 woods.

Brent Hutto,

I meant "refraction", not reflection.
It's an old physics term, " the angle of incidence equals the angle of refraction."  In terms of "mirrors", "reflection" is often used.

If you don't think it's applicable, let's play a match where you have to hit a 2-iron from 150 yards and in.

[Brent Hutto]

Two problems.

1) A golf ball, or any other solid object, can't refract.

2) I doubt very much that I can hit a 2-iron 150 yards. Not that I've ever tried, a 3-iron for me might as well be a putter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent,

OK, use your putter from 150 yards and in.

When do we play ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
In your example of GC #12, doesn't the hybrid give the "...broad spectrum of golfers who populate clubs..."  a chance to be more bold and try a shot that only the professional or very good player could hit? Is that a bad thing? Is there any less of a penalty if they miss?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()