The smoke and mirrors of course set-up...going low.

[John Kavanaugh]

How exactly can a tour set up a course to make it score lower.  Besides the obvious soft greens and low rough are there more discrete methods that will not be picked up by the untrained eye.  Could something so small as exact club distances on par threes make a difference?

[Bradley Anderson]

Hole placements have to play a big role in the score.

[John Kavanaugh]

Hole placements have to play a big role in the score.

I agree and wonder if you can not take it even a step further than general location.  Sometimes a foot one way or the other is huge.  I had heard once that the PGA likes to have a minimum flat area around each hole to make 3 foot putts easier.

[Brent Hutto]

John,

Are you asking about setting a course up for the entire field to average lower scores?

Or are you talking about the lowest scores being lower?

Because those questions would have two slightly different answers. Hole locations can make a difference but in some cases a "tough" hole location just leads to more bogeys and doubles but still allows birdies if you hit the required shot. That would lead to higher average scoring but might not eliminate the odd 62 from being shot, right?

I suspect that the Nationwide Tour (just guessing, no evidence) would prefer a setup that encourages the players to take chances. So add a lot of yardage, keep the rough fairly low, soften the greens and tuck the pins and I'd think you would see a gunner's mentality. Especially on the Nationwide Tour where the only reason to be out there is to make it into the Top 25, unlike the regular Tour you can't just bank a big check for making the cut and shooting 69, 70 on the weekend.

[Rick Shefchik]

Hole locations can have a dramatic effect on scoring. I also think that fairway height and firmness can make a big difference, but that depends on the height of the rough. Fast fairways will get you closer to the green, but also cause your ball to run through doglegs and into the rough. If the rough is low, no big deal. If it's U.S. Open rough -- Shinnecock in '04 comes to mind -- then fast fairways might be a disadvantage.

[JESII]

Actually John...these guys are good!

[wsmorrison]

Rick,

Wasn't the rough in 2004 pretty benign coming into the Open at Shinnecock?  I think that's why the USGA went too far with green speeds and firmness.  My recollection may be faulty though.  I thought the first problem in the falling dominoes was the cutting of the rough leading into the Open.

[Phil Benedict]

Actually John...these guys are good!

On the main tour the quality of play is so high that the only way to keep winning scores within reason (10-under par or so) is by tough set ups week in and week out.  The gap between guys between scratch golfers and guys who compete for a living is getting larger.

The typical Nationwide tour set up favors bombers, at least according to Feinstein's book on Q-school.

[Adam Clayman]

Wayne, As I recall the rough was sporatic in it's penality. I'll cite remembering VJ and Lefty playing for the same patch of rough area on one of the holes and hearing Lefty comment on it.

The only problem with that Open was the narrowing of the fairways with superfulous rough emasculating all that wonderful bunkering.

[George Pazin]

I think keeping everything moderately soft is actually pretty subtle, for the vast majority of viewers. Do that, and I don't think rough height even matters, unless you're talking Carnoustie 99 rough.

The other thing you could do is invite the PGA Tour in, and then payoff the weather forecaster to tell the officials it's going to rain.

Lift, clean and place ====> low scores.

 

[Rick Shefchik]

Wayne,

I think Adam's right about the rough in '04 -- not anywhere as deep as some Open setups, but long enough that it multiplied the difficulty of holding those greens.

[John_Conley]

are there more discrete methods that will not be picked up by the untrained eye.  

Uniform bunker conditions.  Preferably firm enough to prevent plugging.

The main reason people shoot low scores in top amateur and professional events is that they are really good.

There is no smoke and mirrors, so I'm not sure I understand the characterization.  Do you think there are troughs collecting balls in the fairway or chutes leading to the hole?  Perhaps a screen like on a tennis court fence to keep the wind at bay?

[John Kavanaugh]

are there more discrete methods that will not be picked up by the untrained eye.  

Uniform bunker conditions.  Preferably firm enough to prevent plugging.

The main reason people shoot low scores in top amateur and professional events is that they are really good.

There is no smoke and mirrors, so I'm not sure I understand the characterization.  Do you think there are troughs collecting balls in the fairway or chutes leading to the hole?  Perhaps a screen like on a tennis court fence to keep the wind at bay?

Yes, I think it is so fined tuned for ease of score that a par three at exactly 170 yds to the pin is easier than one at 167 yds.  Every green of any character has locations where balls collect...I believe they are pinpointed for the Nationwide and avoided for the show.

An interesting stat is that on the Nationwide tour 12 players averaged below 70 on their final round when on the PGA tour only 10 averaged the same.  I seriously doubt that the Nationwide guys are more clutch.

[Ken Moum]

I believe they are pinpointed for the Nationwide and avoided for the show.

While I agree that the PGA Tour does make it's setups extremely difficult, I cannot accept that the Nationwide Tour is going to any effort to make the courses play easier than they normally do.

But that's the rub, they aren't playing the hardest course to begin with, many are resort courses that will have wider fairways and shorter rough. And since it's not The Big Show, they aren't going to narrow the fairways and let the rough grow for a month before the event.

Even the green speeds of PGA Tour events require a lot of work and involve significant risk to achieve, neither of which is likely for the Nationwide.

They are just good, long courses set up for a tournament. And with the length of the guys on the Nationwide, that's not enough to prevent low scores.

On the other thread, someone noted that there were 34 players with 70% GIRs compared to only 3 on the big tour.

There were also 35 over 300 yard average and 34 over 70% of fairways. The PGA Tour had 21 and 22 respectively.

Wider fairways, "normal" rough and long hitters = lots of GIRs.

Ken

[John_Conley]

I don't think anyone alleged that the Nationwide courses are set up as difficult as the courses on the PGA Tour.

[Ken Moum]

I don't think anyone alleged that the Nationwide courses are set up as difficult as the courses on the PGA Tour.

True, but JK seems to believe that the are actually set easier than they'd be under normal circumstnaces to enhance scoring.

K

[John Kavanaugh]

 We have proof that the Champions Tour did this at Baltimore this year.

[Ken Moum]

Here's some up-to-date information on Barona:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=31903;start=msg625015#msg625015

Ken

[Tim Bert]

are there more discrete methods that will not be picked up by the untrained eye.  

Uniform bunker conditions.  Preferably firm enough to prevent plugging.

The main reason people shoot low scores in top amateur and professional events is that they are really good.

There is no smoke and mirrors, so I'm not sure I understand the characterization.  Do you think there are troughs collecting balls in the fairway or chutes leading to the hole?  Perhaps a screen like on a tennis court fence to keep the wind at bay?

Yes, I think it is so fined tuned for ease of score that a par three at exactly 170 yds to the pin is easier than one at 167 yds.  Every green of any character has locations where balls collect...I believe they are pinpointed for the Nationwide and avoided for the show.

An interesting stat is that on the Nationwide tour 12 players averaged below 70 on their final round when on the PGA tour only 10 averaged the same.  I seriously doubt that the Nationwide guys are more clutch.

I'm not sure I agree that 170 is easier to hit than 167 for the majority of tour pros.  Do you really think they tweak their swings to specifically hone in on numbers that always end in 0?  I would bet that most of the top tier players start with their natural grooved swing and then play to the average that is produced by that swing and make adjustments off of it.  For some that number may be 170, for others it may be 165 or 167.  I don't think there is anything more magical about the numbers that are divisible by 10.