Forced carries on par 5s? Can it be?

[Dennis_Harwood]

More evidence of the lunacy of the thought process of the modern player--

I was partially responsible for course set up this week for an important amatuer event-- The field included several US and State Amatuer champions--current and former--and the average handicap index of the field was a "plus" index--

After the first round an irate player confronted the Committee and complained about the f***ing course and the S**t setup which required "forced carries" on several holes over water--and anounced he was withdrawing--

When quized the player narrowed his complain to two par 5s, 535 yards and 565 yards with water in front of the greens which he said represented forced carries, for him, of over 240 yards over water--

When it was pointed out that the holes were par 5s and therefore, by definition, it was expected to take three shots to reach the putting surface, his response was "that's unfair, you are supposed to be able to reach par 5s in two"--

What hath the modern game evolved into?

[John_Conley]

Without any other information to go on, may I offer another possible explanation?

The game hasn't evolved into anything different, but the guy is an idiot.

[Paul Richards]

Dennis:

Most of these guys probably DO expect to reach most par 5's in two.

In fact, remember a few years ago how much guff Chip Beck got for NOT going for a par 5 in two?  He's still trying to play his way out of the slump that that caused!

As I related in a previous story, the young kid I played at Oakland Hills with recently reached both the front nine five pars in two - with 8-irons!

So, I assume, this fellow isn't THAT long, and would actually be required to hit some type of long iron, or (heaven forbid!) a fairway-wood into a five par.

That would be just plain unfair to ask of him!

[Brad Klein]

Interestingly, at the U.S. Amateur at Oakland Hills last week, Tom Meeks, the fellow from the USGA championship committee responsible for course set ups, was ruing the fact that the players hit the ball so long that par-5s are being reached in two with middle-iron second shots. It made me wonder whether his colleagues at Far Hills, N.J., could be doing their job a little better in making sure that par-5s remain par-5s.

[David Wigler]

Dennis,

I am with John.  The guy was an idiot.  I try to reach every par five in two.  I actually like a forced carry north of 200 yards so at least there is some challenge to the shot.

[Dave_Miller]

Dennis:

The setup was obviously correct the player obviously a spoiled fool.

Three shot holes are what comprise par 5's.  Making it in two is a bonus and sure they should try.  But even if the idiot misses he drops behind the water with a wedge and still has a chance for par.

Or if he lays up still has chance for birdie.

There is no Divine Right in this world to eagles and birdies.

That clown should be banned from competition.

Cheers
Dave

[Rick_Noyes]

Dave,
No need to ban him if he continues following his line of thought.  He'll shoot himself out of competition.

[A_Clay_Man]

Another perfect example of how when someone complains about this type of stuff, that those involved in set-up, should secretly put huge smiles on thier faces.

Is anyone shocked that some premadonna wannabe is a whiner?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dennis,

The danger lies in the continuation of his mind-set, without refutation and reprimand.

He should be suspended for directing that type of language toward the committee.

Secondly, he should have been immediately educated in abrupt fashion with respect to the stupidity, and self centered nature of his complaint.

Or, as the ultimate lesson, confined in the scorer's tent with Tom Paul for four hours  

[Bob_Farrell]

Are we sure this guy was a golfer and not a baseball player?? He sounds more like one of them.

I agree with several of the other posts...........the guy is an idiot!

BF

[Dennis_Harwood]

Pat and Dave--

That is the other part of the story-- The Committee met as he was leaving the premises-- He will not have to face any forced carries in the event next year when it is played at another course--because his entry will not be accepted--

[John_Conley]

DH:

Without getting specific, can you at least let us know if the player has had much success in similar events?  My thesis is that today's tournament player is better off without much concern for design, because they have to shoot low scores whether they like a layout or not.

My first post was very brief and I wondered if it was too harsh.  I thought I should have explained that some people will never be pleased and that this guy will probably always be a malcontent.  I see I'm not alone with my terse response!

[Dennis_Harwood]

John-- He has had some success or he would not have been there, although he clearly was not one of the "favorities".

His "outburst" was uncalled for and cursing tied with public critism of the course(overheard at the scoreboard by all in the vicinity), was grounds for sanctions--

That being said however, I am not sure that the mentality of the current "high level" player(those that compete for national amatuer championships and the collegians) don't harbor similar sentiments--

If they can not "have a go" at every par 5 and are forced, if they believe they have hit a good drive, to put "lay-up" in the equation they then believe they are looking at an inferior design or set up--

They can accept lay up after a poor drive, or they can even accept a brute of a par 5 where virtually no one can reach in two,  but they believe if they hit driver off the tee they should not then be challenged by a difficult risk/reward second on par 5s--One where the choice is a fairway wood or a layup with a short iron==(I think-my game does not approach that level)

[John_Conley]

Your last paragraph touched on something I've been thinking.  If a hole is so long that everyone takes three shots, it's okay?  I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with the logic of players that think this way.  They just aren't being too open minded.  

I have no doubt that Hank Kuehne could get to #3 at Hazeltine in two shots, but since he's not a threat to win an event like that and since Tiger never gave it a go, no player felt like they were at a disadvantage.  

I complained/commented on the setup of a hole to the FSGA official on it two years ago.  My gripe was that they moved a tee too far forward and forced a layup of about 180 yards on a 360 yard hole.  A straight drive, even with a layup club, could run out of fairway and wind up in a lake.  My thought was that it required too much course knowledge for a state event (we have the 4th most populous state with well over 1000 courses) considering few (me!) had ever seen the course before.  It wasn't a county amateur.

When I said this, I knew he wouldn't care.  I just thought that the ONE hole they moved a tee forward on didn't make sense because it radically changed the character of the shots required to play the hole (at least the tee shot because it presented no options) for ALL golfers.  (I didn't get banned from further FSGA competitions, so I must not have been too far out of line!)

This begs the question... can competitors ever objectively comment on course setup?

Perhaps any comments like these really stem from players' insecurities about their own game.  The guy in question may be really in denial about a loss of length with age (relative to other players who may be benefitting from today's Titanium Drivers and solid-core balls).

[Dennis_Harwood]

John--

I'm not sure its appreciated how much influence set-up may have on a course/hole--

One of the interesting items that I wish I could have told the player(he probably was not receptive to listening however) was that the course was Tiger's home course as an amatuer and a major collegiate event was held there just before Tiger turned pro-- In which Tiger blistered the course record and won the event handly--

On one of the par fives(the shorter one) Tiger laid up all four rounds, and birdied the hole all four rounds--In a brief conversation with me and others he stated he felt that it was simply not worth the risk of a bogey or worse if he missed the green with his second and he felt a birdie was much more likely with a layup--I'm not sure this tought process is being grasped by some--

Another interesting revelation-- the stroke average in the event on one short par 4(393 from where the event was played--375 for member play), straight away and no water,  the hole plays somewhat easy for members--in fact it is the 14th rated stroke hole--In the last day of the competition it tied for the most difficult hole(4.86 average score)-- Largely because at those players length hitting driver brought fairway bunkers into play and the hole location (although a regular member play location) was such that if you attacked the hole and got above the hole par was virtuallly impossible--

I have a new respect for that hole--

[CHrisB]

John-- He has had some success or he would not have been there, although he clearly was not one of the "favorities".

His "outburst" was uncalled for and cursing tied with public critism of the course(overheard at the scoreboard by all in the vicinity), was grounds for sanctions--

That being said however, I am not sure that the mentality of the current "high level" player(those that compete for national amatuer championships and the collegians) don't harbor similar sentiments--

If they can not "have a go" at every par 5 and are forced, if they believe they have hit a good drive, to put "lay-up" in the equation they then believe they are looking at an inferior design or set up--

They can accept lay up after a poor drive, or they can even accept a brute of a par 5 where virtually no one can reach in two,  but they believe if they hit driver off the tee they should not then be challenged by a difficult risk/reward second on par 5s--One where the choice is a fairway wood or a layup with a short iron==(I think-my game does not approach that level)

I'd be very surprised if there were more than just a couple of elite-level amateurs who feel this way about the par 5's, although it might seem that way as a tournament administrator. Almost by definition, elite competitors are the ones who take what the course/setup gives them and find a way to get it in with fewer shots than anyone else. The ones who complain almost always lack that mentality (they complain themselves right out of the tournament), or are playing so poorly that they feel only a certain course/setup will suit their game.

For the last 14 years I have been involved with amateur golf as a college player, amateur player in inter/national tournaments, as a college coach, and as a tournament director in junior golf and college, and I have NEVER heard what I would consider to be high-level amateur player complain about such a trivial thing the way your player did. Oh, sure, there have been a few pins here and there that were criticized, but the criticism was almost always given quietly and matter-of-factly (no one wants to let themselves be bothered by anything while competing), and most times it never reaches the tournament committee's ears. The real complainers are almost always the middle-of-the-road players who lack the physical or mental versalility to adjust to different or unfamiliar conditions.

The only time I have ever heard a winner complain loudly about the course/setup was on the PGA Tour when Scott Hoch won the Greensboro tournament a few years ago; he complained the whole week about how the rough was too short, favoring the long hitters and taking the importance off of straight driving, and then he went out and shot -18 or so and won the tournament!

[John_Conley]

Dennis:

The 14th at Hazeltine was the shortest par 4 on the course, but had one of the highest stroke averages.  Ask someone to try to test a player with 300-375 yards and they'll get pretty creative.  Give them 400-475 and the distance alone is often enough.