Is added distance no longer effective

[Patrick_Mucci]

in testing the PGA Tour player ?

I was amazed at the distances the PGA Tour Players were hitting the ball at Oakmont.

397 yard drives ?
Granted, the hole is downhill, but, that's still eye opening, especially on narrow fairways.

When holes are in the 450 range and they're hitting 3-irons off the tee and still haveing short irons into the green, distance no longer seems an effective impediment to scoring.

The drives on # 18 left them with short irons.
We blasted drives on # 18 and had 170 yards to the center of the green.  These guys were 60+ yards back and had shorter distances to the green.

647 yard par 5's are being hit with mid irons
500+ yard par 4's are being hit with short irons

Is length no longer the overwhelming factor it once was ?

While small greens would seem to be an answer, small greens can't survive high round play and offer little in the way of hole location variety.

Playing Oakmont last week left me with the impression that no matter how long you make a hole, it won't impede their ability to reach it in regulation.

Golfers in general seem much longer, presenting a similar profile that diminishes the effectiveness of a critical architectural component ...... length.

Many clubs no longer have the land to add yardage to their holes.

Will the lack of the challenge of an architectural component, historically presented by distance, lead to the radical altering of golf holes in the future ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Welcome to the 21st century.  This has been the reality for some time.  The holes which give the best players trouble now are the shorter holes, which they think they should overpower.

I've seen scoring statistics for club professional and mini-tour events at a couple of my courses, and the par-3 holes are all ranked among the six toughest holes -- because even a 130-yard par 3 presents a longer approach shot than any of the par fours!!

That's why Sebonack has small, highly contoured greens.

[Craig Sweet]

I think the professional golf tour should be played on special courses build by the PGA and not on any other courses....they could then make them as long, and as ragged as they please without offending anyone.

[Phil_the_Author]

Patrick,  

That also is my belief which is why I started the thread about the best par-4's UNDER 400 yards.

What convinced me of the truth of that concept was the play on the same course where you mentioned the 397 yard drive... Oakmont.

Weren't there also 5 par-4's of LESS than 400 yards? And didn't one in particular, the 17th, pretty much decide the winner in the final round.

Maybe we have reached the day where there really are  abunch of 800 pound gorillas hitting 400 yard drives and who can't hit a 120 yard second shot...

[Steve Kline]

If they slowed down the fairways, as well as the greens wouldn't this help? The amount of fairway roll these guys are getting is insane. Plus, longer fairways would enable less spin and control of those shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If they slowed down the fairways, as well as the greens wouldn't this help?


NO,

They're carrying the ball 300+ yards.[/color]

The amount of fairway roll these guys are getting is insane.

What would happen to the members, especially the weaker player who depends upon roll for distance ?[/color]

Plus, longer fairways would enable less spin and control of those shots.

If the first cut of rough is any indication, they wouldn't have any problems spinning the ball from longer fairways.

They are really, really, really great.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

That also is my belief which is why I started the thread about the best par-4's UNDER 400 yards.

What convinced me of the truth of that concept was the play on the same course where you mentioned the 397 yard drive... Oakmont.

That got my attention as well.[/color]

Weren't there also 5 par-4's of LESS than 400 yards? And didn't one in particular, the 17th, pretty much decide the winner in the final round.

Yes, there are 5 short par 4's, all pretty neat holes.

I'd like to see the scoring statistics for holes #'s 2, 5, 11, 14 and 17.  You could throw # 3 in for good measure.

Then, I'd like to compare the scoring statistics on those holes, the par 3's, the par 5's and the other par 4's, with the statistics from previous Opens.  I think it would be an interesting study.[/color]

Maybe we have reached the day where there really are  abunch of 800 pound gorillas hitting 400 yard drives and who can't hit a 120 yard second shot...

# 2 presents a steep uphill lie and a steep green.
# 5 presents a sloped green with some contour
# 11 has a crossing hazard and narrow driving area,
       but, a fairly benign putting surface
# 14 has a flat DZ and a fairly benign putting surface
# 17 is unique.  Even if you play safe to an ideal DZ, the angle
       of attack remains awkward and the green is small, and
       targets smaller.  The putting surface is almost dead flat.

All DZ's are well bunkered as are the greens

The decision off the tee is interesting.
On my first round, I hit driver on every hole.
On my second round, I hit a 3-wood on # 5 and probably should have done the same on # 14.
Errant drives pay a steep price[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

My first impression of Sebonack from the back tees was that it's really quite difficult.

Some greens, like "# 17 play even smaller, depending upon the location of the hole.

The problem is:

How can you design a "TEST" for the PGA Tour Player, while at the same time offering an enjoyable challenge for the broader spectrum of golfers who comprise a membership ?

It seems to me that the task is far, far more difficult today, and getting more difficult every day.

Without restricting I&B I don't know how you can serve those two Masters.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The purpose of those long, free-form tees is to get the members to play the course from a much shorter distance, without realizing exactly how far forward they are playing.  Pete Dye told me a long time ago that the key to getting people around a difficult golf course was simply to lie about the yardage.

I do agree that it's getting harder every year to resolve both ends of the conflict.  I used to think I could do it without having to resort to moving the members up so far, but at Sebonack, I went with the party line of having multiple tees, and it works better than I thought it would.  The golf course is hard from the middle tees, but it's still fun to play.

[Jim Nugent]

I've seen scoring statistics for club professional and mini-tour events at a couple of my courses, and the par-3 holes are all ranked among the six toughest holes -- because even a 130-yard par 3 presents a longer approach shot than any of the par fours!!

This holds true year in, year out on the PGA tour.  

If you want to make a course tougher against par for the pro's, build more par 3's.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

I think Tom did that at Pacific Dunes, but, I don't think a golf course with more than 5 par 3's would be accepted by the golfing world.

[Jon Wiggett]

I think the professional golf tour should be played on special courses build by the PGA and not on any other courses....they could then make them as long, and as ragged as they please without offending anyone.

One of the great things about golf is it is one of the few sports where you can play the same places that the pros do. The R&A and USGA should sort out the ball problem.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Don't cite drives of 397 yards like the two Woods and Cabrera hit on Oakmont's #12. They did hit drives that long but that's not particularly representative since the bounce and rollout was probably close to a hundred yards. What about the other drives that ended up in long rough?

Of course, courses like Oakmont and the others could just go back to over-irrigating their fairways and softening them to prevent bounce and rollout.

Is that what you'd like to see them do?

Bobby Jones hit many drives back in the 1920s that traveled over 300 yards but again probably 75 of those yards were the ball running on the ground.

[Jeff Doerr]

That's why Sebonack has small, highly contoured greens.

As I watch play at Oakmont and read through the great series on GCA leading up to the event. It strikes me that Oakmont has a number of small greens hidden inside the large ones. Is this one of the ways GCA should move towards? Instead of having large expanses of benign areas on greens we need about 9-12 nice pin spots that are puttable. About half of those could be members areas and half tourney spots. I know this is supposed to be done already, but it seems to be missing in a lot of courses.

At Oakmont I remember an approach on 9 where the player pulled it slightly (I think it was Tiger) and then slammed the club into the fairway. Johnny Miller says, "...he'll have fun with that one..." For the basic mid-capper that would be a good shot, a GIR, and a decent chance for a par. For the tour pro, he knew that slightly pulled approach meant a defensive lag approach with almost no chance for birdie.

[Ken Moum]

I'd like to see the scoring statistics for holes #'s 2, 5, 11, 14 and 17.  

Hole   Yards   Average   Rank*   GIR
2    341    4.155    14    66.2%
5    382    4.242    12    62.8%
11    379    4.205    13    69.6%
14    358    4.053    18    78.1%
17    313    4.066    16    64.1%



You could throw # 3 in for good measure.

Hole   Yards   Average   Rank*   GIR
3    428    4.374    9    47.3%

It's all here....http://www.usopen.com/scores/, under Course Statistics.

Note, however, that these short par fours were all pretty easy compared to the rest of the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don't cite drives of 397 yards like the two Woods and Cabrera hit on Oakmont's #12.

Why not ?  Were they just the result of special effects ?[/color]

They did hit drives that long but that's not particularly representative since the bounce and rollout was probably close to a hundred yards.

What about the other drives that ended up in long rough?

With very NARROW fairways, ending up in the long rough was common.

How about Cabrera's drive on the steeply uphill 9th, or did that hit a sprinkler head ?

Or, the drives to # 2 green ?[/color]

Of course, courses like Oakmont and the others could just go back to over-irrigating their fairways and softening them to prevent bounce and rollout.

Is that what you'd like to see them do ?

How could you draw that inference ?

Didn't you read the opening post ?[/color]

Bobby Jones hit many drives back in the 1920s that traveled over 300 yards but again probably 75 of those yards were the ball running on the ground.

I hit a drive over 700 yards at the Fairfield Airport, but, most of it was roll.[/color]

[Paul_Turner]

Pat:

Don't cite drives of 397 yards like the two Woods and Cabrera hit on Oakmont's #12. They did hit drives that long but that's not particularly representative since the bounce and rollout was probably close to a hundred yards. What about the other drives that ended up in long rough?

Of course, courses like Oakmont and the others could just go back to over-irrigating their fairways and softening them to prevent bounce and rollout.

Is that what you'd like to see them do?

Bobby Jones hit many drives back in the 1920s that traveled over 300 yards but again probably 75 of those yards were the ball running on the ground.

Well stated Tom.

The tour stats show that these distances are well beyond the average.  As you point out, every era could cite extreme claims too.

Nobody is routinely hitting 650 yard par 5s with driver+mid-iron (unless they can cut a large corner!).  How can they when only 10 players are averaging 300yds+ for their drives?

Lets keep things in perspective.

PS Patrick,  I think we had a wager here on GCA about how many players would average over 300yds last year.  I think I won it, but I can't find the thread

[Doug Siebert]

Someone recently pointed out that two courses known for having small greens, Pebble Beach and Harbour Town, also see more play than just about any course around.

So is the common wisdom against small greens that they can't handle a lot of rounds perhaps not so valid after all?  Or do the sky high greens fees those two courses charge allow for maintenance practices that a course which wishes to maintain reasonable greens fees be unable to afford?

In playing the courses around where I live I have always noticed that the short par 3s that are <150 yards from the regular tees have 3-4x as many ball marks on the green (concentrated in the front 1/3) as any other hole (longer par 3s or any par 4 or par 5 of any distance)  If the short par 3s were given very large greens, with a lot of width to spread out the collection of ball marks in that front of the green, the rest of the greens could probably be made pretty small.

No one wears metal spikes anymore so the damage to the greens from walking on them is pretty minimal, so I'm assuming that the damage being discussed is primarily from ball marks that don't get repaired or are improperly repaired.  There is also wear on the greens in certain areas if the hole is placed in one spot too long (I see this on the practice greens sometimes) but even on my home course's 15th green which is smaller than the rest and is unpinnable on at least half its surface due to slope, I haven't observed any big issues with wear.  You just learn to recognize that "look" that slightly worn grass gets when it occurs below the hole in the late afternoon and even more than usual you don't want to be above the hole!

[Tags:]

Tags: