Is David Eger Wrong on Major Setups?

[Craig Sweet]

As I understand it "Shot Link" records every shot...distance and club used...

I also read the "whats in the bag" column in golf digest or golf magazine, and most of those pro's claim they hit 5 irons in the 185-195 range....they hit 9 irons 145....

[Chris Cupit]

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.

Doug,

Off of a tee, pros will hit it farther than out of the fairway.  I have 2 uncles that played the tour a long time ago but I did caddy one tournament on the PGA tour for an old college friend in 1996 or so.  I know that is 11 years ago but I don't think the pros distance has jumped so much with the irons--no more than 10 yards anyway.

Of course, lofts on clubs have changed dramatically.  A callaway 7 iron has a loft close to a 5 iron of the 1970's!!  But, I caddied for Charlie Rymer (no short hitter--at the Bellsouth Classic at Sugarloaf he reached the Par 5 10th hole in two with a drive and six iron  and the hole was right at 600 yards!!!)   But his "normal 7 iron from the fairway was 165-170 max.

People really underestimate how firm and fast the courses are these guys play and how far they CAN hit the ball if they want.  What makes them so good is their distance CONTROL--the ability to hit each club a consistent, reliable distance.  That ability, not how far they could hit it if they really tried, is what matters.

Often the huge distance you hear about is due to unusual turf/wind conditions or the result of a "jumper/flyer" from light rough that takes off.

A normal six iron from the fairway on the PGA tour--I stick with 170-185 yards

[Phil_the_Author]

I am absolutely amazed that not a single person has grasped the single most important comment that David made (IMHO). It is quite ironic when you consider the nature of our little discussion group.

He said, "I researched the architect's design philosophy and blended it into the set up."

I have spoken to some at the USGA about this very idea in the last few years. A great example of the "architect's design philosophy" and hole set-up getting away from it is #12 on Winged Foot West.

Originally it was designed as a reachable-in-two 487-yard par five. With the tee box pushed all the way back to 620+ the hole would only be played as a 3-shotter, thereby causing the players not to be confronted with the challenges built into it by Tilly.

By having a front tee used for 2 of the days in the 550-yard range, at least some of that was brought back.

I strongly believe that architectural intent of the designer is the most important aspect of course set-up. That is why I am also very much against introducing "chipping areas" onto holes that never had them. The two they have put onto Bethpage Black are abominations and should be removed.

[Mark Bourgeois]

So, Philip, how did the Oakmont setup square with your point above?

Should it have been set up more like a links?

With that tremendous movement in fairways, it would have been neat to see balls keep bouncing until they hit a bunker. (or did we see enough of that?)

If anything, the greens offered yet another excellent example of the power of gravity, and the tree removal showed how to utilize the wind of a locale.

To Tom Paul's through the green gravity idea, I thought especially 12 illustrated the beauty of this concept.

Mark

[TEPaul]

"To Tom Paul's through the green gravity idea, I thought especially 12 illustrated the beauty of this concept."

Mark:

It did. #12 and a few others of the really contoured fairways at Oakmont did illustrate that point about gravity golf.

However, as we all saw, particularly on #12 that even a perfectly hit drive and long inevitably ended up in the first cut on the right. I think that's what DE meant when he said he thinks fairways should be widened out and that he always tried to promote that. I shouldn't say I think that's what he meant---I know that's what he meant because he told me so in an email after this thread was begun.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yes, it didn't seem right for such masterful displays of courage and power to have met that fate.

It would have been fun watching more balls "carried" to those bunkers via caroms and bounces off those crazy fairways.

Judging by the views on television, the fairways seemed "naturally" narrow as they appeared hemmed by bunkers.

I can understand the USGA's concern with golfers not paying a price for hitting wide of the "proper" playing corridor, and thus the crazy rough.

I honestly have no idea but wonder: had they cut down the rough, would more balls have found bunkers?  Or could they have let the greens dry out and exacted the penalty that way; i.e., shots hit from rough would not have enough spin to hold the green?

Apparently, they believed the answer was "no," and here I wonder whether Eger's comments about officials overestimate the abilities of Tour-caliber players.  The pressure alone on Sunday must degrade their abilities to an extent.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

It hasn't been that much talked about this week with Oakmont but with their recent bunker project they apparently brought the bunkers in to match this new Open fairway narrowness.

That's what I'd call "architecturally structuring Open fairway narrowness".

This is not a great trend to set on classic golf courses generally speaking. Also according to a good playing old-line member a bunker like the really central one on the second shot on #12 has a face that's a whole lot higher than the bunker that used to be there. But on the flip-side of that the old line member also said that something like the US Open is definitely what the membership of Oakmont lives for.

In my opinion, if that's what they really live for, more power to them. The real deal with golf and architecture is that the membership of a club love their course, are proud of it etc.

What more is there to this stuff of golf really then to love your course, be real proud of it etc?