[BVince]

This topic is something that I have been pondering for some time, but the "20 year old flatbellies vs. 80 year old grandmas" quote on another thread sparked me to mention it.  It seems to me that a lot of designs want to offer wide (sometimes really wide) fairways to allow players of all skills to be able to enjoy the game.  I have been golfer watching and it appears to me that the people who struggle the most are the ones who are hitting the ball 200+ yards.  The "80 year old grandmas" are the ones hitting most of the fairways or barely missing them.  It is much harder to hit a fairways when people are driving the ball a long distance versus the people who can barely hit it a hundred yards.  Miss hits at that power are less like to stray as far off the intended line.

Large fairways only make the game easier for longer hitters of the ball, giving them the freedom to “grip it and rip it.”  The only defense these courses tend to have is largely undulated greens, but doesn't that effect players of all abilities?  In addition, the longer hitter has the capability to hit high soft approach shots into the green which affords them the opportunity to fly the ball directly at the hole and stop it within a matter of feet.

So my question is why not put more trouble in the areas of the longer hitters to keep them from wildly attacking the golf course?  Why not make it more difficult in the 250-320 yard range off the back tees to demand the longer driver to place more importance of controlling the tee ball?

[TEPaul]

"So my question is why not put more trouble in the areas of the longer hitters to keep them from wildly attacking the golf course?  Why not make it more difficult in the 250-320 yard range off the back tees to demand the longer driver to place more importance of controlling the tee ball?"

Bryon:

That's pretty much what most architects do.

[Joe Bentham]

Bryon--
I will always (and loudly at times) defend wide fairways.  The wider the better, IMO.  They help higher handicappers keep it in play, and IMO have some what of the opposite affect on good players.  If you stand on a tee and decide you can hit it anywhere, more times then not thats where you'll hit it.  Holes with wide fairways that dictate a specific side to play for to gain an advantage on the next shot are better (and tougher IMO) then holes that make it apparently obvious where you HAVE to hit it in order to score.  Good players walk off a course with wide fairways and big greens trying to figure out why they didn't score better.  Average players walk off the same course with a big smile becuase they played with the same golf ball all day.  challenging good players and not killing the average guy (and from the same tees, but thats another thread entirely) should be the goal of all GCAers.
So to answer your question, I think adding bunkers or rough or anything that defends the preferred landing area/side of the fairway to play for/from would actually make wide holes easier for the better players.  By defending those areas you help indentify them for the better player.

[BVince]

Joe, I agree that wide hitting areas are preferred.  I also don't think there should be only 1 shot that must be played (that would eliminate the strategy behind GCA) but I have played some courses that only have one bunker and 100 yards of fairway.  That does not intimidate the longer hitter of the golf ball. 

This is what I like:
A great example of how 1 fairway bunker changes strategy on number 3 of SFGC.  I know there are more, but it draws the player to it by attempting to fly a specific part of the bunker to get closer to the hole.  Another good example of what I like to see is number 6 at Pacific Dunes.  You could hit the ball just about anywhere to the left side but you face a difficult approach from that angle.



I guess what I am saying is that I tend to get a little discouraged when a fairway is as large as a runway and no real trouble for hitting a wild tee shot. 

[Tom_Doak]

Bryon:

In the example you've cited, there is a lot of fairway ... what makes the hole work is a small green with obvious advantages given to a particular angle of attack, combined with SEVERE penalties for missing the green to one side.

You are right that the 80-year-old grandmas (and indeed most women golfers) would be fine on a 25-yard fairway, as long as the first cut of rough comes back all the way to the tee and is short enough to keep them out of the deep stuff.  (Nobody has more trouble out of deep rough than women.)  However, there are a much greater number of 25-handicap, erratic 220-yard drivers than there are in any other category, and unless there is a lot of short rough to go with them, 25-yard wide fairways for this class of golfers is a prescription for six-hour rounds. 

You've got to get people around before you worry about how much you're testing their games.

[Ken Moum]

"So my question is why not put more trouble in the areas of the longer hitters to keep them from wildly attacking the golf course?  Why not make it more difficult in the 250-320 yard range off the back tees to demand the longer driver to place more importance of controlling the tee ball?"

Bryon:

That's pretty much what most architects do.

Sadly, Tom, you are correct.

I still think it's important to give those long hitters room to hang themselves. I used to play several times a week on a course that looked like you could hit it anywhere. It was mostly treeless, and the rough wasn't often thick or tall. It was, however inclined to get backed out and hard.

People often thought you didn't need to be a good driver to score there, because they never racked up big numbers or a fistful of penalty strokes.

But the wild drivers almost never shot a really good score, because they'd make far too many bogeys.

I don't understand why people think you have to take penalty strokes or sideways pitches out of the trees in order separate the good player from the poorer one.

Ken

[Garland Bayley]

Bryon:
...there are a much greater number of 25-handicap, erratic 220-yard drivers than there are in any other category, and unless there is a lot of short rough to go with them, 25-yard wide fairways for this class of golfers is a prescription for six-hour rounds. 
...

Careful with the generalizations! You see 6 hour rounds on the pro tours. How many of them are 25 handicappers? Me playing with a 23 and spraying them 240-250 yards through 18 holes of 25 yard wide tree gates, with a buddy playing to a 19 and spaying 200-210 yards in the winter on an empty course gets us done in 2 hours.

Perscription unfulfilled!

[Jason Connor]

So my question is why not put more trouble in the areas of the longer hitters to keep them from wildly attacking the golf course?  Why not make it more difficult in the 250-320 yard range off the back tees to demand the longer driver to place more importance of controlling the tee ball?

If you're talking about the average public course or club long hitting 20yo (or 30yo) I'd say that placing hazards there won't matter.  They haven't matured enough yet to realize a 210 yard hybrid off the tee is probably the much better play.  I still favor putting hazards there to punish the foolish.  But I don't think the architect can overcome their arrogance and affect many of these players' club selections.  Many see par 4 or par 5 and just reach for their jumbo driver.

(I speak from experience, I think I'm reformed).

[Garland Bayley]

If you're talking about the average public course or club long hitting 20yo (or 30yo) I'd say that placing hazards there won't matter.  They haven't matured enough yet to realize a 210 yard hybrid off the tee is probably the much better play. ...

You probably believe that "game improvement clubs" help those who's games need improvement too. The long hitting high handicapper is perfectly capable of hitting a "game improvement" 6 iron off the tee out of play just as easily as they are hitting driver out of play. When you are playing hit and hope, maturity doesn't matter.

[Kalen Braley]

Bryon,

I've presented similar arguements before and the best response I heard was why punish power players for having the ability to hit the long ball?  Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and it seems arbitrary to focus in on the long hitter.  As for me I'm not long off the tee, so I can't really relate, but at least it makes some sense.

Another problem with putting the trouble in the 250-300 yard range is that the grandmas will have to interface with it on thier 2nd and 3rd shots, while even if the better player lays up, he will still be able to play past it on the 2nd shot.

I'm personally a fan of defending areas of the fairway, not with OB, water, or bunkering, but with undulation and bad angles into the green.

[Jason Connor]

If you're talking about the average public course or club long hitting 20yo (or 30yo) I'd say that placing hazards there won't matter.  They haven't matured enough yet to realize a 210 yard hybrid off the tee is probably the much better play. ...

You probably believe that "game improvement clubs" help those who's games need improvement too. The long hitting high handicapper is perfectly capable of hitting a "game improvement" 6 iron off the tee out of play just as easily as they are hitting driver out of play. When you are playing hit and hope, maturity doesn't matter.

Not at all.  I was referring mainly to distance.  If a guy's swing puts him 10 degrees off line, that's 47.6 yards offline with a 270 yard driver but only 31.7 yards offline for a 180 yard 6-iron.  That 16 yard difference is plenty to go OB, into the woods, or whatever other trouble there is to be found.

So it's all about geometry. Likewise the same swing is further accentuated with a driver since the club is longer.  So maybe it's 12 vs. 10 degrees offline (which is 57 vs. 32 yards offline).

While the long hitting mid or high handicapper can hit any club out of play (as you say), he'll hit a lot more fairways with a 6-iron or hybrid than with a driver. 

[Garland Bayley]

If you're talking about the average public course or club long hitting 20yo (or 30yo) I'd say that placing hazards there won't matter.  They haven't matured enough yet to realize a 210 yard hybrid off the tee is probably the much better play. ...

You probably believe that "game improvement clubs" help those who's games need improvement too. The long hitting high handicapper is perfectly capable of hitting a "game improvement" 6 iron off the tee out of play just as easily as they are hitting driver out of play. When you are playing hit and hope, maturity doesn't matter.

Not at all.  I was referring mainly to distance.  If a guy's swing puts him 10 degrees off line, that's 47.6 yards offline with a 270 yard driver but only 31.7 yards offline for a 180 yard 6-iron.  That 16 yard difference is plenty to go OB, into the woods, or whatever other trouble there is to be found.

So it's all about geometry. Likewise the same swing is further accentuated with a driver since the club is longer.  So maybe it's 12 vs. 10 degrees offline (which is 57 vs. 32 yards offline).

While the long hitting mid or high handicapper can hit any club out of play (as you say), he'll hit a lot more fairways with a 6-iron or hybrid than with a driver. 

Your reasoning neglects to consider that many many courses are wider at 270 yards than they are at 180.
It also neglects to consider that almost everyone will aim 10 degrees (or more) away from out of play, and that out of play remains the same angle from the hitting point at 180 yards as it is at 270 yards.

EDIT: On my home course, I personally hit more balls out of play with my 7 iron or less than I do with my 5 wood or longer.

EDIT2: Forget my home course. Take our recent GCA outing to Heron Lakes:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33880.0.html
I dumped 4 ball into ponds with short clubs in my hands as opposed to the single offline driver that went into a pond.

[Doug Siebert]

Garland,

I think you are probably unusual in hitting more balls into trouble with a shorter club than a longer one (or have identified a need to work more on your short iron play)


Jason,

Hitting a shorter club off the tee is actually a much harder decision to make than it used to be.  10 years ago I probably hit 1 iron off the tee at least half the time on driving holes, even on some par 5s where it was not reachable or the odds were long.  Most people don't (or never did) carry a 1 iron but you can substitute your favorite fairway wood or hybrid where I say 1 iron, its the same concept of having a go-to non-driver club you feel confident in off the tee.

Now that a driver is the easiest club in the bag to hit, its a lot harder to make that argument to myself.  I know Shivas at least feels the same way, we've discussed there before in multiple threads in the past.  It used to be that the difference in distance between my driver and 1 iron wasn't all that great, and the chances of a mishit were roughly equal.  But the 1 iron was a bit shorter club, had more loft than a driver so there was less undesired curvature on the ball, and I had a bit more control of trajectory with the 1 iron than I did with the driver (that had one trajectory for me, high, even though I was using 6.5 to 7 degree drivers back then)

Since then equipment changes have made drivers that are much larger to where it is the easiest club in the bag to make decent contact with, increased driving distance so the distance gap between driver and 1 iron is a lot bigger than it used to be, and produce less undesired curvature on the ball.  The only thing a 1 iron has going for it now is that it is a shorter club and I'm confident in it, but I mainly use it off the tee now to stay short of trouble rather than believing I can hit it straighter in its own right (unless its one of those days where I just feel like I have no idea where my driver is going)

If I dropped all the way down to a 210 yard shot as you suggest then for most holes over 400 yards I'm leaving myself one hell of a long approach.  If my layup leaves me with an approach where I'm probably going to end up with a bogey (or worse, feel like I might as well layup again instead of trying for the green) then unless there's very severe penalty of the stroke and distance type awaiting a badly directed driver, what have I got to lose by hitting the driver?  If I hit it well I've got an easy shot to the green, if I don't I can hack my way sideways out of trouble or whatever and then have an easy shot to the green.  The average score I'd achieve with the driver is probably better, even if the variation might be larger (and golf is more fun, albeit frustrating, when played with a higher standard deviation of scoring )

[Cory Brown]

This is a well worn topic, but I also believe it is a very good topic.  There is always great debate. 
A 75 yard wide fairway would be very easy if we subscribe to the belief that bunkering needs to be well off of the edges of the fairway.  If bunkering is brought into the field of play to either tempt the big hitters to carry them or navigate around them it becomes a much different thing altogether.  The shorter hitter will have to make their way around the hazards as well, but that's what separates good short hitters from bad ones is the ability to stay out of trouble.
Looking at the picture from Pacific Dunes I thought how flat the hole looked, but then I remembered that from the tee it seems relatively flat and easy.  I hit a great drive right at the green, I thought it might even run up to the front.  Then I watched it hit and roll 50 yards left and short of the greenside monstrosity.  Over the green on my second and a triple bogey.  Easy hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()