Is "rough" the only defender against the PGA Tour Pros ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

You're forgetting about the people who pay for all of this, the advertisers, they want entertainment.

And, the networks, in producing the event, they want the visuals and the theatre.

You're not going to get weekly club conditions presented on the PGA Tour.

[Trey Stiles]

How about letting the course play with just enough rough to take spin off the ball ( regular grooves ) , firm up the greens , maybe narrow the fairways a little ( maybe not ) , and play with a " spec " ball    Who cares if the best players in the world shoot 20 under

I've hard enough of the " arms " race that requires high rough , 14 stimps , 500+ yd par 4's , , 7600 yd courses .

How 'bout making "rough" bunkers?  Small islands of 3" grass, strategically located...

 

I did this on a course I owned that had no bunkers , It was pretty cool ( until the old timers shouted it down ) and I can assure you , you don't want to be in a 3" tall 419 bermuda grass bunker vs. any raked sand bunker.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I've been digging for it and when I find it I'll post it for you. It's an interview in which Tiger said he had a hard time controlling his spin rate from the slightly higher fairway grass at an unmowed Augusta. I think it had rained and they weren't willing to put mowers out the morning of a practice round. That couldn't have been more than 1/4 or 3/8 of an inch of extra growth.

If bunkering (especially greenside) was soft it would add an element of unpredictability, putting a crown or two on otherwise worn down teeth.
     
As for putting surfaces, that would probably be harder to swallow, although I think there might be a course or two with highly contoured greens where the idea could work, at least once or twice a season.

Golf is entertainment, no doubt, but it's not in such a good position right now. It could be a very good time to get the Tour to try a few changes if some influential people touted them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I thought that Nicklaus, Miller, Olgivy and others had championed this position.

In the ultimate, I think the ruling bodies, the PGA Tour the U.S.G.A and The Masters has to endorse that reasoning.

[Tim Gavrich]

I wouldn't say that rough is the *only* defense against Tour pros, but it is certainly used as such.  I am coming to realize that the Masters is my favorite tournament to watch on television year-in and year-out because it DOESN'T have nasty rough and players can try riskier shots from off the fairway and try different shots around the greens.

[Matthew Parish]

Tim,

Your comments about the Masters jibe with Ogilvy's statements perfectly.  The greens will either present the challenge or they won't.  The speed and contouring at Augusta (despite its lengthening) require players to play to the right portion of the green.  And to do that, during normal playing conditions, they have to be thinking about their angle of attack from back at the tee.  At some point it seems like course architects bent on presenting challenges to tour professionals will go in the direction of geens with more severe contouring which may not handle higher stimp speeds but are more likely to repel the poorly struck/placed shot.

[Cliff Hamm]

Let them putt on the typical slow and bumpy muni green and see how many 10 footers they make

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mathew,

What holes at Augusta require a golfer to be in a particular area of the fairway DZ in order to present an advantaged approach selected hole locations ?

Hole by hole, where are those locations ?

Could your premise be a golfing myth ?

[Mike Hendren]

Rough is not the "only" defender.  Rough, trees and water - elements detested by the architectural cognoscenti.  Rough and tree combo is the best defense, but the touring professionals are deathly afraid of water, particularly when it is hard against the green - they can't afford to drop two strokes since the margin of victory, or the pay differential between 4th and a tie for 5th is substantial. 

[Michael Moore]

500+ par 4's don't offer a challenge.

Pat -

At the 2009 PGA Championship, the 518-yard par-4 12th at Hazeltine National played to a scoring average of 4.506.

[Patrick_Mucci]

500+ par 4's don't offer a challenge.

Pat -

At the 2009 PGA Championship, the 518-yard par-4 12th at Hazeltine National played to a scoring average of 4.506.

That's a meaningless statistic.
One has to examine the elements/features that comprise that specific hole.
With 300+ yard drives, 200 yard approaches are merely mid-irons for these fellows.

The fact is that 400 yard par 4's are obsolete when it comes to the yardage being the first line of defense.
Likewise, the yardage on 500 yard par 4's is no longer a substantive defense against the PGA Tour Pros. 

Have Mike Sweeney explain the concept to you as you've missed it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I sort of disagree with the premise that distance doesn't challenge pros.  Why?

Watching the PGA, they put up Tiger's stats for the year.  I think he was 58 under par in total for ALL the tournaments he played.  Of that, he was 60 something under par on the par 5's and actually a few over par on the par 3 and 4 holes, with the par 3 holes being the higher of the two.

I attribute that to the longer approaches on the par 3 holes.  I wish I had access to Shotlink and the PGA Tour stats, but when I have had a chance to see them, the average distance to the pin from longer shots in is NOT that impressive.

So, even for the all time best player, he basically just cleans up on the par 5's and ALMOST plays par golf elsewhere.  Maybe the only solution is to reduce or eliminate the par 5 holes, which I agree can hardly be made long enough to be true three shot holes (at least very often)  Doing so would also save construction costs, at least on any new course going forward!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rough is not the "only" defender.  Rough, trees and water - elements detested by the architectural cognoscenti.  Rough and tree combo is the best defense, but the touring professionals are deathly afraid of water, particularly when it is hard against the green - they can't afford to drop two strokes since the margin of victory, or the pay differential between 4th and a tie for 5th is substantial. 

Mike,

If the PGA Tour Pros are afraid of water hazards, how do you think the average member perceives and plays them ?

Everyone forgets that once the big show leaves town the membership and guests are left to play the golf course.

You can't create meaningful water hazards very easily today due to the enviornmental constraints.

And, if you do, the membership has to navigate them day in and day out.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
The general stats on 5s, 4s and 3s for 2008:  there were 43 guys at -100 or better for the par 5s, there was only 1 guy below par on the 4s, and there were only 3 guys below par on the 3s.   

The 197th player was -13 for the par 5s. That was lower than the leaders in the 3 and 4 category.

[Michael Moore]

Likewise, the yardage on 500 yard par 4's is no longer a substantive defense against the PGA Tour Pros. 

Pat -

On the average, the best players in the world always end up playing these holes well over par.

Are you saying that there is no correlation between the challenge that a hole presents and the scores that are made on it?

How else are we to measure challenge?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
The general stats on 5s, 4s and 3s for 2008:  there were 43 guys at -100 or better for the par 5s, there was only 1 guy below par on the 4s, and there were only 3 guys below par on the 3s.   

The 197th player was -13 for the par 5s. That was lower than the leaders in the 3 and 4 category.

So, there you have it!  Eliminate Par 5's.  Golf is still a hard game for these guys.  We have to remember that we only see the guys who are really hot for the week on TV and that unrealistically colors our opinion of how well they play.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
The general stats on 5s, 4s and 3s for 2008:  there were 43 guys at -100 or better for the par 5s, there was only 1 guy below par on the 4s, and there were only 3 guys below par on the 3s.   

The 197th player was -13 for the par 5s. That was lower than the leaders in the 3 and 4 category.

So, there you have it!  Eliminate Par 5's.  Golf is still a hard game for these guys.  We have to remember that we only see the guys who are really hot for the week on TV and that unrealistically colors our opinion of how well they play.

Agreed

[Matthew Parish]

Patrick,

Without going through a hole-by-hole, pin location by pin location of a course I have only visited for two days, I will largely agree with you, for today's average tour player, the notion of placing yourself on one side of the fairway or the other to attack a given pin lcoation is myth, despite the number of times Johnny Miller may suggest it.  But in firm conditions, the angle at which players come into to certain greens at Augusta, i.e., from right or left, can have a profound effect on how bad a miss will impact a score.  A couple which come to mind are #11 with tee shot down the left and a front/middle left pin or #1 with front or back left pin and coming from the left side of the fairway.  There are pins on both #5 and #7 where the ridges running through the green either present a teir that must be climbed because they run perpendicular to the angle of approach or where one must hit to the correct level because they run  parallel.  But these largely only become a real concern where a player finds himself unable to spin the ball sufficiently.  Anyway,  I will certainly concede most tour players, even at Augusta, are probably not thinking, "Okay, what side of the fairway do I need to be on to be sure I do not make bogey if I my approach bleeds a little." Although if I wanted to shoot better scores myself, such a defeatist mentality on the tee might prevent the snowman I apt to throw up when I have a good round going.       

[Jeff_Brauer]

Probably deserves a new thread, but in reality, when has tempting a hazard with a driver, vs. say a mid iron (and the average approach length gets shorter all the time) ever statistically been a good play?  Yes, it varies with the nature of the hazard - water, rough, sand (and the total area guarded, such as waterall down the side, vs. one bunker, etc.)

But what do you feel more comfortable with accuracy wise, driver or mid iron?

[Dan Kelly]

I'm not there, and am not watching, so I can't say what it is ... but SOMETHING is beating the crap out of the PGA Tour pros today at Liberty National.

Figure out what it is, and you (might) have the answer to your question!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

What's the old scottish saying?  "Nae Wind, Nae PGA Tour Bogey?"

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

What's the old scottish saying?  "Nae Wind, Nae PGA Tour Bogey?"

Yes, I think that's it!

BUT (big BUT): No wind to speak of in Jersey City today! Cf. http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KNJJERSE49

[tlavin]

Distance doesn't matter, because the technology is designed to beat distance.  They will NEVER mess with the ball, so we are left with tweaking grooves.  Will this have an effect?  I'm guessing that it will have an effect, even if it is statistically negligible at the end of the first year of competition.

The bottom line is that the measures that would have to be done to golf to make the pros look human will never be done, so we have to live with the dichotomy between them and the rest of us mortals.  For us mortals, the technology has been spectacular.  The modern ball is awesome.  These big drivers are spectacular.  The wedges available are just mind numbingly good.  Hybrids?  Gimme a break!  I can't hit a two iron or a four iron, but I carry a two hybrid and a four hybrid and hit both pretty well.

Finally, getting directly to Patrick's point, rough would help, but the tour wants these guys to score, so don't expect much difference in rough.  As for the USGA, they seem to have gone away from the overly punitive setup of years past, so it doesn't look like they will have pros hacking out of the heather for a while either...

[Bill Brightly]

Wind.

Unfortunately, you can't count on it, but that is what REALLY messes with pros. IMO, Tiger lost the PGA because of the wind. He tried to hit fades on several key holes, hoping the wind would make the ball fall to the hole, and he pulled them all.

So this has me wondering what might happen at Bandon and Pacific if the PGA was played there. I have not played there yet, so I really wonder what you guys think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Likewise, the yardage on 500 yard par 4's is no longer a substantive defense against the PGA Tour Pros. 

Pat -

On the average, the best players in the world always end up playing these holes well over par.

No, they don't.
Distance isn't the critical defense against scoring.

Par 4's of 430 yards used to present a challenge.
Then, they went to 450 and that wasn't a challenge for long.
Then they went to 470 and that wasn't a challenge for long
Now, they're at 500 and that's no longer a challenge.
320 yard drive, 180 yards to green =7 iron at most.
A challenge would be if they had to hit a 2 or 3-iron or a 3 or 4-wood.

Pete Dye recognized that problem when he tried to alter the 14th at Crooked Stick just prior to the PGA won by Daly.
He indicated that he wanted PGA Tour Pros to have to hit their long irons, just like most amateurs were forced to do when they played championship courses.

I believe that the driving stats at the NCAA's were longer than those on the PGA Tour, meaning that the next generation is even longer.

Are you saying that there is no correlation between the challenge that a hole presents and the scores that are made on it?
NO

How else are we to measure challenge?