Equipment technoloty and gca

[Lou_Duran]

After dinner and drinks late one night in June, David Moriarty, shivas, and I went out to PB #18 to look at the new tree guarding the right side of the green.  Whether it was the perfect night at this wonderous setting, the day's 36 holes we played at another course nearby freshly in our minds, the alcohol, or a combination of all of these, our thoughts and dialogue went all over the place.  While most don't merit further discussion, Mr. Moriarty did have one that was particularly interesting, and I have not seen it addressed in any forum.

David noted that we are all aware of the negative effects of advancements in equipment technology on gca, particularly in terms of changing the character of play at the classical courses.  But, he also wondered out-loud whether there were some positive consequences as well.

He posed this question much more elegantly and succintly than I just described, using the 18th at PB and the location of the new tree as an example.  In the "old days", the typical play was a driver/3-wood down the right side, a lay-up with a long to mid-iron on the second as close to the water as possible, and a wedge of some type to the green.  With longer clubs and balls, it is not unusual for the player today to flirt with the left side of the fairway off the tee to get home in two.  It seems that on this hole at least, new technology allows for more options, a more enticing risk/reward opportunity, and the potential for a 2 to 3 stroke swing on that last hole.  BTW, without the tree by the green, the drive and second shot would be less important, as a making a 4 from that side would be much easier.

Other holes of this type made better by modern technology that come to mind are the 16th ("Monster") at Firestone-South, and the 12th at OSU- Scarlet.  There are probably some tight par 4s that are now driveable under the right circumstances which result in a higher range of scores.  Can anyone think of other holes or gca features enhanced by the advancements in equipment?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Lou,
I don't think you could consider any hole as being made better by modern technology. It might raise the excitement level of a tournament Sunday if the 18th at PB became more reachable due to equipment but that in no way is an improvement to the hole, only another option available to less than 1/10 of 1% of golfers.
The longest players from any generation have always been able to use the "option" of length.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

That's an interesting thought you all had, but I think you're right that the truth lies in the fact that holes like the ones you mentioned are a bit unique and that's the only reason this can be looked at positively. The remainder of the holes in the world that aren't unique for the reasons you cite on these three are probably just going to be affected negatively!

You mentioned a par 5 (#18 Pebble) that was not really reachable (or going for it was never really the choice just a few years ago) but now it is. As the green end is clearly dangerous the scoring spectrum will increase with this new agressiveness due to advanced technology and increased distances. There's no doubt this will increase the available options and choices on #18 from a few years ago.

And you cite two other holes that are par 4s that are now reachable in one (with commensurate risk like PB's 18th). What you're giving us are a few holes which are able to be reached in one shot less far more often than a few years ago and this does no doubt increase the available options and probably the scoring spectrum if their green ends have danger.

But this is definitely not true of all the rest of the holes in the world that are not reachable in one shot less with the advanced technology and distances compared to a few years ago. For all those remaining holes the strategies and interest of them has probably only been compromised!

[Jeff_McDowell]

Lou,

I'm sure you're talking about the potential benefits of modern technology, but if you go back one hundred years the answer is a definite yes.

The switch from the featherie to the gutta percha (and the lower cost) allowed golf to be enjoyed by people of moderate means.

[Lou Duran]

Jim,

For me, adding excitement, variety, and options makes a hole (course) better.

Most golfers have a hard time getting the ball airborne, and the modern technology has made the game more enjoyable (though not necessarily easier).  For the pros and top amateurs, the new clubs and balls have made many of the classical courses much too short (personally, par is not that meaningful to me in this context, so I would just firm up the greens and grow only moderate rough).  I would not have a major concern with technology if the owners/members of the classical courses didn't feel the need to modernize/ renovate just to please a very small number of people on rare occasions.  There is something very rewarding about nutting and shaping a drive over the corner and hitting a flip wedge to a green just like the pros.  While I seldom get to experience it personally, I did see shivas do it at CP #8 and it was awesome!  It is doubtfull that he would have attempted the shot with a persimon driver and a red Maxfli, and I am sure that the hole was more fun for him than if had hit a 5-wood, 7 iron like I did.

  

[TEPaul]

Dave Schmidt:

That post of yours is so very interesting and actually that thought was touched on briefly on Golfclubatlas when the site originally hit the Internet.

But it's a fascinating question because the redan is a hole that certainly would be made more muti-optional due to advances in equipment and distances and the available shot choices to it would certainly be increased and interesting! In that vein Pat Mucci claims that Tiger Woods hit a moon shot fade with a 5 iron to one of the best of them--NGLA's #4!!

But there are others, I believe, who might defend very vehemently that the real "redan shot" is a very very interesting and demanding one, almost an historical shot albeit a one dimensional option requirement.

For his feelings on this particular question I would love to hear from George Bahto as I believe he feels the one dimensional and demanding "redan shot" should be defended from compromise by technology and I think I recall him saying that given the advances in distances that any redans built today should be in the neighborhood of 255-275yds simply to restore that "redan shot" as the only one that would work--just like it must have been in the old days!

[redanman]

For his feelings on this particular question I would love to hear from George Bahto as I believe he feels the one dimensional and demanding "redan shot" should be defended from compromise by technology and I think I recall him saying that given the advances in distances that any redans built today should be in the neighborhood of 255-275yds simply to restore that "redan shot" as the only one that would work--just like it must have been in the old days!

Interestingly, in the high desert of Arizona, the par 4 sixth by Doak starts to approximate this feel at about 310.  Of course, the redan # 14 on the back is quite elegant and refined in spite of fighting for the spot of top par three on that nine with #11 which is sublime (And totally off the topic).  This par 4 plays that way for a modern solid ball striker.

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute!! Dave Schmidt is Shivas??

Look, Goddamnit to hell, I really don't mind anonymous posts but when one guy becomes two names and two people I get much too confused!

Who are you anyway? Can I call you Dave Shivas too?

[mike cocking]

It is interesting how technology has affected the great short par 4's on Mlebourne's sandbelt - interesting like the 18th at Pebble Beach, it has not necessarily been to their detriment.

Whilst most of the great one's are now reachable with a well struck driver (for professionals and good amateurs), due to fanastic bunkering and green complexes they make incredibly difficult targets to hit and hold.  Even though they may not seem so from the tee, holes such as 15th Victoria, 4th Woodlands, 10th Royal Melbourne, 3rd Kingston Heath, will generally result in frustration from the player who hits driver more often than elation at the rare chance of an eagle.

Which is why, even though they are all reachable most players will still lay up from the tee and back themselves to play a good pitch rather than risk it all with the driver.  

The only difference is that instead of playing a 3 wood or 2 iron from the tee, players may now hit as little as a 5 iron to position themselves properly.  In fact rather than the holes being adversley affected by technology, they may have even been improved, with a greater number of players now asking themselves the risk / reward questions that 50 years ago only a select few did.

[George Bahto]

TEPaul: As usual you had me pegged correctly. Given a free hand building one today I would build a Redan strategy as just about reachable on the fly for the best players accounting for mountain elevations etc. - so to put a defined yardage on one I would like to see built, considering modern technology, is difficult. That's why I like the idea of it just "being reachable."

Then we have all the options - including the nuked, high-fade if you're were downwind, a pro or a "tiger" but I want to see the high fade to a Redan of 250 or so - now you have to come in over the deep bunker???    hmmmmmm, perhaps bailout straight up the throat of the approach ....

I personally like 245 to 255-yards today - similar to the Biarritz yardage from most back tee-boxes.

We are talking about one of the great strategy holes of all time and to "shorten" it to a middle iron - which is usually is for most good players today - really takes the heart out it and it becomes just another tough par-3

[Lou Duran]

George,

It seems to me that if the Redan is lengthened to 240 - 250 yards at sea level, for nearly everyone there is but one way of playing it- on the ground, and right to left.  Left in the 175 - 200 range, with a firm green, many more players are tempted to hit it high over the trap.  I think that at the shorter yardage, the hole offers more strategic interest.  I do enjoy a brutally long par 3 in a round as long as there is a place to bail-out to.

shivas,

You are right, it was a 3-wood off the tee on #8.  Now that I remember, I am even more impressed.  Would you have gone for the green on #9 with a persimon driver and a mush ball?  Not me.

Mike,

I look forward to coming out to Melbourne in the not too distant future.  Enticing the player to some times bite more than he can chew is what I was getting at.  While not on point, Muirfield, the way it was set-up, was boring to me because most pros were hitting irons off the tee.  With less hay and faster greens, it would have been interesting to watch the top players challenge the par 4s.  Modern equipment allows us mortals to do that.  And the new clubs and balls enable even the high handicaper to occasionally experince Dr. MacKenzie's wonderful short 4s and 5s like the pros.

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

Did I hear you say on this or another thread that you're "not a very good player"?

Being modest and humble is one thing.....but, let me warn the rest of the GCA'ers....you don't want to play this guy....especially with a bit of wind about.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

It's very little said on this website because basically the idea of interesting strategies and multiple options on any hole reigns supreme on here but the fact is that occassionally a single high demand shot (on a par 3 like the redan) or a couple of necessary high demand shots on a par 4 (like the Road hole) as the only way to acheive a particular goal is very interesting too in golf architecture.

Many of us think of multiple options today to acheive a particular goal almost always a GIR! But that's not the way it was in the old days and that's what George Bahto is saying holes like the long redans often demanded in the old days--or certainly a hole like PVGC's #5 or Cypress's #16 etc.

To get on a hole like that sort of required your best shot, something maybe akin to ringing the bell at the state fair and any other option generally meant giving up a shot (certainly not attaining the desired goal that today we think of and identify as a GIR)!

Frankly, in the old days when holes like that were designed and built neither architects nor golfers looked at it like we do today of multiple shots and options to acheive the same goal (GIR).

The way they looked at holes like that in the old days is one high demand option as a risk for a great reward and the other options as likely giving up a shot so as not to risk giving up more than one!

[Lou Duran]

Tom,

As I stated, I like a hard, brutally long par 3 in my round.  The redan is such a special type of hole though, that it is a lost opportunity if it is so long that you can't tease the aggresive player into hitting a high fade over the bunker on occasion.  As shivas suggests, the redan may be a hole whose interest and shot values have been enhanced by modern equipment.
I wonder whether a 190 yard redan would have a wider range of scores and a similar average to its 250 yard counterpart.

I know that we all talk about options and strategies, yet if we plotted our shots I think that many of us would find that we play most holes the same way time and time again.  I wish I was that good to feel comfortable knocking down a 3/4 5-iron right-to-left, holding it against a left-to-right wind from 150 yards.  It is very rewarding when you have the courage to hit the shot called for and pull it off.  But more often than not, you thin it over the green or over-hook it, then proceed to belittle yourself.  Perhaps that is why some of my most enjoyable golf is played late in the evening by myself when I try shivas's "Seve" shots and don't really care what the pencil says.

Mike Cirba,

They call the Huckster "America's Guest".  I am known in my group as "Mr. 84" for obvious reasons.  He is the genuine article; I am an imposter who occasionally breaks his par (84), and is thankful for it.  But if you and your friend, BV, want to take me out to PV, I'll play each of you for $2 and give you two aside.  Hell, I am used to paying off.

[Lou_Duran]

Mike C-

One more thing.  Some architects seem to have it in for me.  No, I am not paranoid, but it is like they've personally identified the numerous weaknesses in my game, and proceed to design their courses in order to expose them.  There is something about the work of Pete Dye and Bob Von Hagge (sp) that puts the fear of the Lord in me.  I am a visual person, and perhaps all the angles and mounds just confuse me.  I do respect Dye's place in the industry, and enjoy some of Von Hagge's work that he did with Bruce Devlin (though not much of his solo stuff).  I know that both of these guys build hard golf courses, but this goes beyond the degree of difficulty as would be suggested by the course rating or slope.  Have you found your game particularly incompatible with the work of any architect?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

It's sort of funny how you ask about architect's who have your number.  After a particularly good round at Riviera, I thought I had George Thomas's number.  

Then, a few weeks ago I played Whitemarsh Valley with a few of the guys here and just got TROUNCED.  It occurred to me that Thomas is one of the only architects who seems to put most of his trouble on the "right", which for a lefty who's "deathshot" is a hook, means big trouble.  

The routing at Whitemarsh Valley is almost all counter-clockwise, and when there wasn't OB right, there was usually woods or water.  If you think about the routings of Riviera and LACC, they are similar in many ways.  Thomas had to be a right handed "hooker"!

[DMoriarty]

Is No. 10 at Riviera a more interesting strategic hole now that more golfers hit the ball 300+ yds?  

Lou, to me you will always be "Mr. 73."  And Shivas, your license plate should read "4i2i8i."

[TEPaul]

Lou Duran:

You are definitely getting to the meat of things when you surmised in that post above that the scoring spectrum might actually increase if a really good redan played to 190 instead of 250 (or average scoring might even come into line between the two).  

That example pretty much brings into play all the elements we talk about on here--good architecture, decison making time (strategy), shot making (execution), but more so the element that is probably least understood and could be the most interesting of all in good architecture--temptation!!-- (and how great architecture deals with the degrees of the temptations it elicits)!

Because a hole like a really good redan in the proper condition (like NGLA's #4) at about 200 max would tempt players today with this new equipment, distance, and modern shot making ability into more options and choices (and options the hole really wasn't designed for) the spread of scoring at the shorter more multi option inducing distance surely would create a wider scoring spectrum.

On a redan like NGLA's #4 when the ground is firm, when the green is firm (and fast) the hole is basically a very slim margin for error type of hole and architecture--even with shots that are very well executed but maybe a bit less than perfectly thought out. Holes like this can and do really piss off good young players who don't read them correctly because they are hitting the shots they want to and they can still very much get badly penalized.

In those necessary conditions I mentioned a hole like NGLA's #4 is immensely sophisticated in numerous ways in how it deals with various types of shots even if very well executed. A guy like Tiger can probably hit a moon shot fade into that hole but in those conditions still he has to be spot on in both distance control and accuracy! Just hitting the green or some part of it will not do it!!

I'll leave it to George Bahto to explain the nuances of NGLA's #4 to various shot choices (options) and what generally happens to them if not almost perfect in execution in those ideal firm and fast conditons throughout.

One of the interesting things about a redan like that which has not ever been much talked about on here is not just what shot to hit to succeed well on the hole but if the shot does not come off well even if apparently well executed (which so many don't) where the place(s) are you almost have to miss the shot to be able to recover well.

On NGLA's #4 when those conditions are present there're basically three places you can't miss the shot--short (in front and right), straight over the green (easy to do) and certainly short in the redan bunker!! The only real option where you can reasonably recover for par is long and left or just left at the low end of the green!

So you make a good case for more options on a redan today vs the one shot demand or fewer options of yesteryear but still the actual ramifications on scoring are basically fascinating and tell an interesting story about a great piece of architecture when played back then or today!