What courses really challenge your distance control with your irons?

[Brendan Dolan]

Just watching the PODS Championship, and the announcer said that Innisbrook really challenges your distance control with your irons.  Distance control with the irons is key no matter what course you play.  My question to you is what courses are it particularly important to control your distances with your irons?

Although I have never played during the recent US Opens at Pinehurst # 2, the annoucers always talk about how little the target to land the ball in is.  What are some other courses that really challenge this part of your game?

Brendan

[Will MacEwen]

I think Bandon Trails does. Quite a few false fronts, and easy to get into trouble long as well. 

[Matt_Cohn]

Here, let's get the inevitable out of the way:

Oakmont, Pebble Beach, Winged Foot, Merion, Shinnecock, Augusta, NGLA.

Can we change the question? What specific features of a golf course make it particularly demanding of precise distance control with one's irons?

It seems like a pretty intuitive list: small greens, undulating greens, fall-off edges, windy sites. Is there more to it than that?

[Brendan Dolan]

Matt good call I was about to change it to design factors?
Brendan

[Peter Nomm]

A lot of Nicklaus courses do where the depth of a particular portion of the green is quite shallow. 

The Outlaw Course at Desert Mountain is VERY challenging from this perspective.  In addition, the course is not overseeded in the winter and is cut tight all around the greens. 

[TEPaul]

"Re: What courses really challenge your distance control with your irons?"

I'd say that with fast greens many of the old courses with real back to front sloping greens (or just generally sloping greens) really challenge distance control with irons. One of the best that way is Seminole particularly with pins on the fronts of those back to front sloping greens. A lot of the Ross courses I know are that way too, including my own course.

[Tom_Doak]

I would just like to know if many people think challenging distance control with your irons is something a course should emphasize.

My own thought is that distance control is its own reward, but that we should not over-emphasize it, because the vast majority of players have little to no distance control.  Thus my dislike for shallow greens with trouble at the front and back.

[Art Roselle]

I had the chance to play Yeamans Hall a couple of times last week and we discussed this exact topic on the way home.  In addition to false fronts and trouble over the back, Yeamans has another feature that is pretty interesting.  Most of the greens are square-ish and on a lot of holes, there is a spine running down the center (or near the center) of the green parallel to the line of play (holes 5, 9 and 15 come to mind and the "bathtub" green at #3 severes a similar purpose).  If you are not on the correct side of the spine, then it is really important to be the right distance.  Putting perpendicular to the spine is not so bad.  The ball goes straight up the little rise and straight down the other side.  If, however, you are long or short and have to put at an angle to the spine, then things get dicey.  The ball will break away from the hole on the way up the short-side of the spine and then tumble over and break back the other way.  Getting the ball to crest at just the right point, at just the right speed, is very very tough and if you are wrong, you can look very silly (like staying on the wrong side of the spine, 40 feet from the hole).

This feature may be too "geometric" for some people's tastes, but it really serves its purpose.  If you hit your iron at the flag, then it is ok if you are a little long or short.  You are on the correct side of the spine and the putt is manageable.  Likewise, if you are offline, but the right distance, then the putt is OK.  Being wrong on both, however, creates big problems.  I like this idea.  It seems fair to penalize a player who is wrong on both counts.  Occasionally you will hear someone complain about the "circus putt" they ended up with, but if you hit it long AND left, then you should be glad that you are putting at all.

When you combine this feature with the fact that Yeamans has a lot of false fronts, and some other very intricate greens, I found it to be very important to get the distance control correct.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am kind of with Tom D on this one.  Most of my greens are gently rolling, so the closer you get to the pin, the better your chance of a birdie putt. 

However, the green centers are the flattest, with sharper rolling edges.  Thus, when going for a tucked pin near a green edge, those rolls can reject a shot backwards, increasing the distance to the pin to a greater degree if short, and possibly kicking a shot hitting the back slope of the ridge further. 

Net result, when the pin is in a Sunday Pin location near the edge, aiming for it gets a lot harder. If perfect, great. If short you can't get close, but you might not be any further than if you had played a safe shot to the middle of the green.

At least, that's the theory!

[Jon Spaulding]

Crystal Downs places the highest demand on distance control/ball flight that I have seen. Even with that it, is still fair and not overly disastrous for mishits. Miss-putts might be a different story.

[Karl Bernetich]

My own thought is that distance control is its own reward, but that we should not over-emphasize it, because the vast majority of players have little to no distance control.  Thus my dislike for shallow greens with trouble at the front and back.

Is it "dislike" or "dislike to design into a course for today's golfer" ?
My all time favorite golf hole is a short (not drivable) par 4 with a tiny green and death all around.  Lets the golfer choose what club to hit off the tee to give themselves the best approach shot for their game.  Even a 4 iron off the tee leaves and 8 iron or less into the green.

Come to think of it, the hole I've described is a old course feature.  I've not seen too many new golf courses ... except the 8th at The Golf Course at Glen Mills.  One of my favorite holes there -- except you can go at it with the driver.

Shouldn't we all have at least some distance controll with an 8 iron or less ?

[JESII]

I would just like to know if many people think challenging distance control with your irons is something a course should emphasize.

My own thought is that distance control is its own reward, but that we should not over-emphasize it, because the vast majority of players have little to no distance control.  Thus my dislike for shallow greens with trouble at the front and back.

This my merge with the "Are Big Greens Superior..." thread, I have not read that one...but...I think big greens can emphasize distance control with irons and, is the best way to do it if you ask me...AND...YES I think you should emphasize the demand. Not with lakes and bunkers, but with slopes and angles.

#12 at Merion is the best example I can think of...no it's not a big green and the bunkers around it are nasty but recovery would be awfully tough if those bunkers were just short grass hollows...

It asks you to pick a target other than the flag itself, and a yardage other than exact to the hole. This is my idea of challenging a players distance control.

[JESII]

Jeff B,

What then would be the reason to aim for a tucked pin? Sounds like the risk far outweighs any reward...

[Jeremy Rivando]

I'm not sure that distance control is something that needs to be emphasized but I'd argue there is certainly a time and a place for shallow greens with trouble in front and behind.

Short par 4's and most par 5's should have the ability to challenge a players control with short irons and offer a high handicapper a different angle from which to access the green.

I really like the angle the 13th at Glen Abbey offers, it's a really shallow green that intimidates a player from going for it in two, but if you lay up down the left side you have a generous angle to approach the length of the green.

I've always been a fan of trouble long, I think Ross always did a pretty good job of making players believe long would be dead on his courses.  We should always believe we're going to hit a solid iron shot, even though it happens a lot less than we'd like.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

Your reply #8 sounds an awful lot like the way many of the greens of Shinnecock play.

[Craig Sweet]

The Ranch Club...formerly Phantom Links.....long irons hit to greens with false fronts and greens that are raised.....

[John Kirk]

Here, let's get the inevitable out of the way:

Oakmont, Pebble Beach, Winged Foot, Merion, Shinnecock, Augusta, NGLA.

Can we change the question? What specific features of a golf course make it particularly demanding of precise distance control with one's irons?

It seems like a pretty intuitive list: small greens, undulating greens, fall-off edges, windy sites. Is there more to it than that?

Exactly.

The first course that comes to mind for me is the Kingsley Club in northern Michigan.  For me, the course yields a lot of 100-120 yard shots where a 5 yard miss can mean bogey or worse.  Very demanding short iron course, and a really fine test for the scratch player.

[JESII]

TEP or Wayne,

care to expand with a couple specific examples at Shinnecock?

[Jeff_Brauer]

JES,

For all the talk of the Golden Age strategies, as near as I can tell, good players today focus strategy more tightly on distance, trajectory, and spin control and how those can take advantage of green contours to get close. I don't think they even factor outside bunkers in, although they would factor in water.

Generally, I have come to believe that for good players, challenging on the Sunday pin with bunkers outside the putting surface just isn't enough. Putting the challenges inside the putting surface is what is required, as they are that good.  Obviously, if you have moderate distance control and accuracy, playing for the middle of the green probably makes more sense.  Most average players should do this anyway, as their strategy should still be to avoid bunkers.

I agree with your point to a degree. One reason I generally limit my two tier greens is because those tiers can take a shot and kick it back 40 or more feet from the pin, when the ball landed just a few feet short.  The rolling edges I mostly use are more gentle and generally don't kick the ball back that far, just stop it in place, but I guess that depends on total spin, etc.

Providing that those rolls don't reject your shots off the green, is the risk all that much greater? You have a chance to get close, and a chance to be further away. If you aim at the middle, you only have a chance to be somewhat further away.

In terms of risk, is that any greater than, say, going for a green on a par 5 in two?  At 220 yards, and with a pond near the green, you have a chance at 4 and a chance at 6 or 7.  On a par 4 with a rolling green as described, aiming at the middle says you most likely make 4, but being bold gives you a chance at 3, a probable 4, and at worst 5, assuming you generally are a good lag putter.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I kind of enjoy this discussion, even if some disagree with me....no wait, I'd rather talk politics on that other thread......

[Randy Van Sickle]

I'll give it a stab, based on my own experience, as well as some of the criteria established by the first few posters:

1 a & b) Will MacEwen - "(a) Quite a lot of false fronts, and (b) easy to get into trouble long as well."

2 a, b,  c & d) Matt Cohn - "(a) small greens, (b) undulating greens, (c) fall-off edges, (d) windy sites."

3 a b & c) Tom Paul - "with (a) fast greens many of the (b) old courses with (c) real back to front sloping greens (or just generally sloping greens) really challenge distance control with irons."

Eastward Ho!

1a - Check
1b - Check

2a - Check
2b - Check
2c - Check
2d - Check

2a - Check
3b - Check
3c - Check

Many of these iron shots must also be controlled from an uneven stance, whether it be slightly uphill or downhill, or above/below your feet.   

[Sean_A]

I think there is a place for distance control for shots into the green and to fairways.  I wouldn't want to see a ton of this sort of exacting shot, but it does add variety. 

For me, ball flight is a much better question to generally ask of players.  This usually means tempering one's game in the wind and especially on a humpty bumpty or hilly course.  It also means that where the wind can be harsh then distance control should be a strategy less employed by the archie.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Here, let's get the inevitable out of the way:

Oakmont, Pebble Beach, Winged Foot, Merion, Shinnecock, Augusta, NGLA.

Can we change the question? What specific features of a golf course make it particularly demanding of precise distance control with one's irons?

It seems like a pretty intuitive list: small greens, undulating greens, fall-off edges, windy sites. Is there more to it than that?

Exactly.

The first course that comes to mind for me is the Kingsley Club in northern Michigan.  For me, the course yields a lot of 100-120 yard shots where a 5 yard miss can mean bogey or worse.  Very demanding short iron course, and a really fine test for the scratch player.

How do you think I felt?  Your 100-120 yards shots, except on the par 3s (#2  ) were my 140-160 yard shots!  Kingsley is a good call.

I agree with the comment that some really cool greens have a spine down the middle which requires you to hit the right half of the green.  In that case it's more directional than distance control that's critical.

[Brendan Dolan]

Thanks for all the interesting responses.  While thinking about this idea some more over the weekend, I don’t think I have ever considered a design feature as something that would challenge my distance control with my irons.  Yes these features do inherently reward those who control their irons, but rather I have always thought about how I can use or avoid these features to give myself the best chance of scoring well, and not that I must precisely hit my iron 162.5 yards and not an inch more or less.  So I agree with Mr. Doak that controlling distances with irons is a reward in and of itself. 
Brendan 

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps the types of course that are most demanding of distance control of your irons, are as described above, which many are those of the manufactured, big platform, green structures.  Like the Raynor template greens that have built up, big platform structure, or the Langford-Moreau type, that have the highly built up, thus edges that roll off and down.  These generally large greens of that ilk, often have the spines or compartments or tiers, as well. 

Lay of the land, greens upon natural contours, on firm and fast, require more finesse in the deft or feel striking of the ball, accounting more for the firm bounce and estimating the roll-out factors, than the distance control approach to big platform greens that seem to be more in the past era of golf design. 

PS: Jeff, sorry if I got 'sucked' into this mere GCA sort of reply.  Somehow I got distracted from the big O.T. running soapbox, Hyde Park like corner of editorializing... But, I'll keep trying...