[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

Distance is only as important as the wherewithal to know where it's landing.

No doubt -- when distance and accuracy mesh it allows such players a greater degree of options when playing just about any hole.

But, as I said earlier -- architects need to move fairways because hitting it long and shaping shots as needed requires a unique marriage of skills. Few can do it consistently. Architects who simply add distance for the sake of distance miss the point entirely. Fastball hitters can pounce on a dead straight fastball pitcher.

Rob, try to realize I observe very carefully how architects can protect their designs from long hitters. We discussed the compelling nature of the 14th at BT -- so things can be done that do that and so much more.

Westchester CC played very well when it hosted the Tour and I can only hope it will return to the schedule down the line. Clearly, Tiger had issues there and at WF.

Thanks for the response, that is a pretty big ball and that type of distance changes the game big time - which I am learning on Tiger Woods Wii golf!

Getting fitted is one way to go -- do yourself a favor and check out banggolf.com -- they have some of the best drivers on the market -- I swear by the Bang Storm which I have been using for the last three years.

I would also recommend checking out via google the work of Sean Cochran -- first rate fitness guru for various Tour players including Lefty. Go to his site via seancochran.com. Can help you increase your needed golf muscles.

Rob, please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying dog-legs on every hole -- just slight turning points -- working a cut fade or a soft draw requires a good bit of skill -- especially when you are going all out with the big stick. Great designers are like skilled pitchers -- they know better than to throw a steady diet of fastballs -- they can mix up speeds, throw different pitches and vary the location of where they do throw the ball. Skilled golf architects can do likewise.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt,

No misunderstanding at all - I am agreeing that a dogled is one strong architectural feature that can be used, but should be used in good taste.
In this day and age of long bombing straight hitting pros the ability to force the pros to work the ball off the tee is one advantage the architect has versus technology/fitness/etc. to defend par.

I would not expect an architect to create every hole on the course to specifically challenge a big hitter - at the same time, on a few holes through the use of doglegs, strategic center line bunkering, natural features that could kick the ball into a less than ideal area, etc. - the long hitter can probably be challenged a little more . . . if it does not disrupt the overall course strategy of the GCA which obviously needs to remain in alignment with the clients aspirations for a project.

I really hope Wicked Pony gets some CF so TD & Crew can finish it - getting a bloody nose from a course every once in a while is a good thing!

[Matt_Ward]

Rob:

Re-read Tom Doak's final comment on Shinnecock Hills in CG.

It spells out a situation that very, very few courses can remotely accomplish.

I'm happy to see that Doak is now entertaining the idea in creating a golf layout with a bit more teeth but still keeping his primary emphasis on the fun side alive and well.

If you were to play Rock Creek you'd see a good bit of that on display there. The totality of the design does provide fun and playable dimensions but if you switch to the rear tees and place the pins in some of the more remote locations it will require a clear bump up of skill.

Rob, remember this -- power is the ultimate card that is tough to rein in -- when a guy is smoking the ball big time distances and has a control of where it's going no course in nearly all instances can survive that onslaught -- assuming the guy doesn't have Roberto Duran (hands of stone) on the putting surfaces. The power dimension would be the equivalent of an NFL team gaining 8 or 9 yards on first down via the run. Nearly impossible to stop.

Today's technology has encouraged the power dimension -- but the shaping element is where architects can fight back. The mere turning of a hole even slightly can cause doubt and where there is doubt there will be instances of hesitancy in terms of execution and overall performance. Pete Dye excelled in getting into the head of those types of players -- it will be interesting to see how Doak and others fare given the demand that creating courses for multiple levels and styles can be quite difficult to achieve. Like I said -- re-read the review of Shinnecock and you will find that rare bird of a layout.

[Mike Benham]

I am confused by the conflicting statements:

Rob:

On a calm day / sea level my total carry and runout with a driver can exceed 300 yards. As an FYI -- I use a 5.5 degree loft 47-inch Bang Storm Driver with a XXX ETA Pavlet Shaft via Penley.

The 3-metal (13 degrees) can range anywhere from 260-290 depending upon the firmness of the turf.

200 yds = 6 iron
150 yds = PW or 9 iron

I'm closer to what Bill said  -- on my best day maybe 220 carry and then some added roll whatever the turf will permit. I need mega fast and firm conditions to get into position on many holes.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

I said the 2nd statement you mentioned as a joke when a thread was posted on just how far people hit the ball.

The first one is the accurate one.

Hope this helps you understand ...

[Mike Benham]

Matt -

Those distance numbers are Lama-esque, I hear Ben Wright's voice in the background "That drive is huge, simply huge !!!"

But one must ask, what is your index?

HNY

Mike

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

My handicap is within the GHIN system for those looking to find it.

Keep in mind, as I said to a few others before -- part of the distance equation comes from both a dedication to physical fitness concerns and having the proper equipment.

I recommended to Rob looking at the Bang Golf site -- they have excellent driver choices and to the site of Sean Cochran who is doing some really interesting things on the physical fitness front - see his work with Lefty as one example.

By the way -- if someone has a driver four or more years older they are really allowing technology to be used by their opponents and putting themselves at a disadvantage.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Would you please strike the last sentence of your last post?

A statement like that is so completely at odds with my philosophy of life and golf, that I don't think it belongs on a thread entitled "Golf Digest Tom Doak Interview".

Thanks very much.

[Phil_the_Author]

Gee Matt,

"By the way -- if someone has a driver four or more years older they are really allowing technology to be used by their opponents and putting themselves at a disadvantage..."

I guess you'd enjoy seeing me pull out my Pederson steel-shafted persimmon driver from the set that my parents gave me as a high school graduation present in 1971! I find it I hit it every bit as far and off-line as I do my modern Titlist medal-headed monstrosity!

Of course, that may not be saying very much, but there's nothing like the feel it generates and the sound it makes when the ball is hit right... 

[Charlie Goerges]

Gee Matt,

"By the way -- if someone has a driver four or more years older they are really allowing technology to be used by their opponents and putting themselves at a disadvantage..."

I guess you'd enjoy seeing me pull out my Pederson steel-shafted persimmon driver from the set that my parents gave me as a high school graduation present in 1971! I find it I hit it every bit as far and off-line as I do my modern Titlist medal-headed monstrosity!

Of course, that may not be saying very much, but there's nothing like the feel it generates and the sound it makes when the ball is hit right... 

Wow, I thought my dad was the only one playing with wooden woods. Of course his are not persimmon (as far as I know) and they are Patty Berg signature models. He does hit them quite well when he makes it to his left side, when he doesn't...let's just say that no amount of technology would help him.

[Carl Nichols]

Tom:
Something tells me that no one's gonna confuse your philosophy of life and golf w/ Matt's. Just a hunch.

[Mike Benham]

My handicap is within the GHIN system for those looking to find it.

Using GHIN is only useful when you know what state(s) you have your membership.  I ask the question because Lama-esque length does not necessarily relate to a low handicap (until someone tells me what state you hold your index, I'll assume you are a scratch/plus index) and how that relates to your opinion on this topic.

I recommended to Rob looking at the Bang Golf site -- they have excellent driver choices and to the site of Sean Cochran who is doing some really interesting things on the physical fitness front - see his work with Lefty as one example.

You have mentioned Bang a couple of times, are you an official Company spokesperson? 

Keep in mind, as I said to a few others before -- part of the distance equation comes from both a dedication to physical fitness concerns and having the proper equipment.

I kind of like using 3 year old irons and woods and not being in perfect golf shape because if I ever wanted to hit the ball 10 yards farther, I know how to do it.  But then again, when you only play 20 rounds of golf a year, I am more then happy with the distance and accuracy of my game.

By the way -- if someone has a driver four or more years older they are really allowing technology to be used by their opponents and putting themselves at a disadvantage.

Isn't this statement only valid if your opponents also update their drivers? 

And for those whose only competition is the course, why would it matter?

[Jim Nugent]

Matt's point about the driver seems pretty simple to me: newer drivers give you an advantage, compared to older equipment.  Why is that offensive? 

[Sean_A]

Matt:

Would you please strike the last sentence of your last post?

A statement like that is so completely at odds with my philosophy of life and golf, that I don't think it belongs on a thread entitled "Golf Digest Tom Doak Interview".

Thanks very much.

Tom

It is sad but true, Matt is right.  Handicap golfers line up to but new drivers practically every year then some have the gall to complain that courses aren't challenging enough.  Its a crazy world we golfers live in and I hope this attitude of buying the latest and greatest so folks feel they have a better chance to win a club championship fizzles away in the current hard times - but somehow - knowing golf culture - I know this will never happen.  I had been very much against mandating the limiting of technology, but over time I have become more and more sympathetic to the cause only because golfers (in their rush to "compete") are too stupid to realize they are killing the goose that has laid many golden eggs for us. 

Ciao 

[Matt_Ward]

Phil Y:

I hear what you say but you remind me of Justin Leonard who was among the last of the last to dump his old wooden classic driver for a metal replacement.

There's no question -- the titanium clubs of today are far superior than the persimmon one you are using now. At minimum you are likely losing anywhere from 10 to 15 yards from the distance side.

No matter -- if using the old realiable works for you so be it.

Sean:

People will always seek to buy clubs they perceive as giving them an advantage. The reality is that the clubs of today can produce such results when used by players who can get the most out of them. Simply check out the improvement of overall handicaps over the last 25-30 years and you will see little has really changed in terms of overall playing ability for the mass-appeal player.

Where the gains have been made is at the highest of high levels. These are the folks who have added distance and still are able to spin the ball from rough like areas. However, if you notice as well -- the overall distance even the best of the best are hitting it has seemed to hit its peak from a few years ago. 

Mike B:

I live in North Jersey -- so it should not be so tough to find out the info you seek.

Mike, in regards to Bang -- I only mentioned it because I like what the product does. I have no connection to the club company beyond a personal preference. Unfortunately, too many people make the incorrect assumption that only the main equipment companies offer quality product. That's not the case -- if you watched the Remax Long Drive Competition (ESPN did televise it a few times this holiday season) you would see the Bang clubs being used. The folks that hit the ball a long way don't use a product unless it performs to the level of their needs. I only offered my recommendation because I think its a product people might want to check out and see for themselves.

Mike, I offered the physical conditioning side as one element that more golfers need to focus upon. Simply buying "technology" is not going to mean much if you are not in somewhat good shape. I recommended the work of Sean Cochran -- again I have no business connection to him -- because I think he focuses on the physical improvement side for those 50 and under and even concentrates on what's needed for those who are 50+. If you are comfortable with that your golf game provides then you are the sole judge as to whether improvement in any area is worth the time and effort.

Mike, my last comment on drivers -- is a simple one and no less than equipment gurus like Frank Thomas also suggest. The state of today's technology is changing -- if you have a driver that's more than four years old you are not taking advantage of the gains that have been made. If you feel comfortable playing with old time clubs then by all means stick with them and allow your opponents to use them.

When you ask if your only competition is the course -- then by all means use whatever you wish -- you can even consider going back to wooden shafts and the original version of the Haskell ball if that's of interest.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Matt's point about the driver seems pretty simple to me: newer drivers give you an advantage, compared to older equipment.  Why is that offensive? 

Jim,

Bang offers golfers the Bangenstein  http://www.banggolf.com/prodgroup.asp?cat=DRVBSTN

"The Bangenstein driver features triple face technology (non USGA conforming) that has a higher COR value. The hitting face is so solid that it is virtually unbreakable. This driver is said to be like a monster from hell when it’s hitting a ball, with its terrorizing roaring sound and the unbelievable long drive."

If you're interested in beating your opponents into submission with a "terrorizing" driver, why not go for the Bangenstein?  How many of those cowering weaklings will know it's non-conforming?

I think it's fairly easy to understand how a GCA with a long-time interest in preserving older golf courses might find the values espoused by Bang to be offensive.

[Matt_Ward]

Eric:

Let me point out -- the Bang Storm driver - which I use as well as countless others -- complies with all USGA specifications. Ditto the clubs used by those who competed in the Remax long drive competition that I prefaced previously.

One other thing -- the issue of power and golfers seeking extra yardage is as old as the hills.

If you want to link Bang as some sort of modern Darth Vader be sure to throw the term "offensive" to others in the equipment industry as well. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

1.6 but no rounds posted since July?

 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I didn't play much locally ... likely my handicap has risen to about 15 now.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

I didn't play much locally ... likely my handicap has risen to about 15 now.

Why would you post only local rounds?

Not that it matters.... but you said to look you up....

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

I didn't say anything about looking it up -- I was asked to provide the info by Mike B.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck:

I didn't say anything about looking it up -- I was asked to provide the info by Mike B.

"I live in North Jersey -- so it should not be so tough to find out the info you seek. "

Seems to me you are telling him to look it up... he's not around today, so I did so....

In any case, I am still unclear why one would only post his local scores. 

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

In case you missed it ... here's what was asked of me ...

"Posted by: Mike Benham  Posted on: December 31, 2008, 05:33:12 pm 
Insert Quote 
Matt -

But one must ask, what is your index?

He further asked about my location -- and I provided it to him. I didn't say anything about looking it up -- just how to find out if he was interested in doing so.

In regards to other rounds played I could have included other scores as well. My tardy errror - of course, I'll take the extra shots if people want to spot them.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt - we all know how to find handicap indices.   So yes, Mike asked, and rather than just say what yours was, you told him "how to find it" as you say.  That to me was odd.  But more odd was that a guy like you who plays so much golf can't find a way to post his scores... if only the ones where he actually tries to make a score... but you say you are tardy in doing such, that's cool.

I was mostly just surprised as I expected to see 300+ rounds posted for 2008....

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Now that this thread has bounced around to a few tangent items -- I'd like to refocus and use three examples I played in '08 in which the fairway does bend (no pun intended) a certain amount which would fit into the needed realm in challenging the longer hitter while at the same time still accentuating the playability dimension mentioned by a few already.

Two examples are at the new David Kidd layout at Tetherow in Bend, OR.

The 2nd hole is a dog-leg right par-5 holes (about 560 or so yards). The player faces a turning point which if reached correctly can serve as a "speed slot" and funnel the ball yards and yards down the fairway. The key is not simply hitting it long but shaping the shot so that when the ball does hit the ground it is sufficiently turning to take advantage of what the architect has provided.

Those less inclined can always bail out a bit further left -- there is a solitary bark of a tree that extends upwards and is visible from the tee and therefore provides the player with a marker to guide one's execution.

If you play down the left side the option for hitting the green is reduced considerably but you still need to position your second shot for the resulting short pitch into the green.

The same be said for another hole on the front side -- the par-4 6th. Here you play from an elevated tee and encounter a split fairway -- this one works quite well because either side can be helpful. Those daring to take on the more risky left side -- a slight pull is wet city -- a slight push gets caught up in either bunkers / debris. The advantage if execution works well is a short shot and visibility to nearly all pin locations.

For those who opt further to the right you get a longer shot and less visibility.

I highlight these two holes to illustrate that architects can successfully include holes that don't allow the power dimension to simply on the face of its existence overpower such holes and cause an even further separation between what one group of players can do versus that of others.

Kidd did this quite well.

The last one I want to mention is the spectacular 11th hole at Rock Creek --Tom Doak's recent layout in Deer Lodge, MT.

The par-4 plays about 440 yards from the tips and it features a spine that separates shots hit to the left of the spine -- and those going right of the spine. It is a great addition because the more favored line -- the left -- is guarded quite well and a bit narrower than the right side which can funnel balls even further to the side and cause a blindf approach to the green in queston. Those who can hit the ball down the left side -- with both accuracy and power will reap the ultimate reward -- a short approach with visibility to all pin locations.

Clearly, there are ways within modern golf design to keep a proper balance between power and accuracy. I enjoyed these holes immensely and they clearly speak to the understanding of the architects in question in how to combat the need for different playing styles among players.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()