[Mike Wagner]

Matt,

As a writer, how did you come to the conclusion that I was confused?  Was it because I disagreed with you, or you have scientific fact that "working the ball with the driver is the ultimate in shotmaking?"

If you're relying on Lee Trevino for scientific fact, then you might want to consider the possibility that maybe I'm not confused.  I simply stated my opinion.  Again, you fire back with your condescending "I know everything" attitude.

Most really good players can shape shots.  All I'm saying is I don't believe driving the ball perfectly is the ultimate in shotmaking - I'll take the guy who gets it close to the hole from everywhere.

Does driving the ball well make the game easier? Absolutely.  Does it make you the "ultimate shotmaker?"  I don't think many would agree - I know I don't.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

My response to your initial statement was not meant to be condescending -- that was not intent -- if that's what you infer. I simply stated that your idea that getting the ball close to the pin is an invaluable skill -- second to the point I made in which great driving is what sets that option up. That's where the confusion lies.

I guess if Trevino says something I should infer he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. To a man that I have ever talked to who is knowledgeable about golf -- Trevino is right at the top in terms of consumate skill in shotmaking with just about any club in the bag. I would think his opinion -- more than mine -- more than yours -- would count for something. Forgive me for my error in thinkiing that his thoughts might count for something.

Mike, in the history of the game -- minus the likes of Tiger -- which Trevino readily admits -- the great players were generally in a high class with the skill for the driver. Getting off the tee has become easier from the standpoint in being straighter -- the strong players are able to harness that aspect by swinging harder for even more distance and with today's balls being less spin oriented (from a side-to-side perspective).

Tiger is the one person who has overcome that deficiency in being so-so in terms of what he does with the driver. When I say hitting the driver I am speaking about the wherewithal to marry distance and working the ball whenever the circumstances warrant. Hitting an iron either way is much easier than with the Big Stick.

I simply commented that having courses maximize that concept of "working the ball" off the tee would provide a leveling of the advantages that power players have already achieved. Nothing more ... nothing less.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Mike:

...the mex mentions the singular importance of the tee shot. I think it's fair to say that beyond the likes of Hogan -- Trevino rates on the very, very short list of ultimate shotmakers.

Mike, the issue is not being able to hit the ball straight -- today's clubs practically guarantee it when linked with today's golf balls. Getting the ball to move one way or the other -- ON COMMAND -- is a far different situation and one few players can handle. Mike, think of the 13th at ANGC....

Matt, interesting that you should mention Trevino's belief in the importance of the tee shot and the 13th at AGNC in the same breath.  I understood it was not his favorite golf course.  His Wikipedia bio reflects the legend: "His self–taught style, distinguished by an out-to-in swing designed to fade the ball (which he devised to combat a chronic hook)..."  We know that as one of golf's greatest ball-strikers he could hook the ball if he wanted to, but one doubts his style was tailor-made for the 13th at Augusta.  Don't get me wrong, I loved to watch him play--but I think he had a go-to style like most players, great or otherwise.   Is it a weakness of his or of the hole that the hole's best option requires one of the greatest ball-strikers ever to work against his go-to tendency?

Was it Trevino's ability to curve the ball that helped him win two US Opens and two PGAs?  Or was it his ability to hit the ball straight?

[Matt_Ward]

Eric:

I have interviewed Trevino and the issue with ANGC wasn't that he could not hit a draw. That's preposterous -- the Mex could play any shot at any time when called upon.

Trevino's issue with ANGC was more about his coming onto the golf scene from the background he had and the folks at ANGC being a bit different than what the Mex could handle. Lee's vibe for ANGC was not course specific but other elements.

The same fallacy applies to Nicklaus -- the idea that Jack could only hit the high fade -- players of that caliber can maneuver the ball as needed -- do they have a preference? Sure. But LT could play the shots whenever needed.

No doubt when you have hole like the 13th at ANGC -- the fade option isn't the play. Lee's best finish from my memory at ANGC was a 10th place finish in '75. He also boycotted the event a few times during his best days and frankly I just think he talked himself out of it when going there. The course was not Hootied up as happened after Tiger's first win and then thereafter.

Eric, I think the 13th clearly would work more to the advantage of those who could play the control draw shot. Lee could certainly improvise as needed. I simply think the head game he had was less with the course and more with the folks running the show there.

What made Lee a sixtime major winner was the wherewithal to produce shots as needed. Keep in mind, we are not talking about a very strong player in terms of overall length but clearly someone who could play all the scoring shots when needed.

Hope this helps ...

[Mike Benham]

Someone who can control such a shot should have an advantage that is not drowned out by someone else hitting the ball 30 yards further.  

Jason -

Care to tell me and the GCA brethren why should they have an ADVANTAGE over a longer player? 

[Emil Weber]

I think it is good concept, I've thought about it before.

There's a course about half an hour away from the place where I live and it asks that qustion 9 times during the round and I think its a very interesting course.
It is risk/reward, because you can either shape the ball around the trees, with a chance of missing the fairway but a shorter shot into the green, or you lay up to be left with longer shots into the green. It also makes the course play longer than it is.

[Ken Moum]

On the courses I've played, the most common way to achieve this result seems to be via the placement of trees. And that brings up a HUGE problem IMHO.

The problem, of course, is that the trees that define these holes have a discouraging tendency to get bigger--or die.

And when they do, the hole can go from interesting to ridiculous in just a few years.

I see it on my home course, where I took a 2-year leave, and a friend of mine took a 4-year leave--returniing at different times. For both of us, returning was revelation.

For each of us was one or two holes that changed enough while we were gone to take away one or more good ways to attack the hole.  In the most obvious case to my friend, our 11th hole--a 435-yard dogleg left-- went from being fairly interesting to boring as hell.

The tree on the inside of the corner has grown so large that it's no longer a reasonable option to try to hit a draw around ther corner to create a good second shot.  The loss of one huge, old tree closer to the tee has made the option of cutting the corner so attractive that even 20-handicappers are doing it. Succeed, and you have a 130- to 160-yard approach.

Meanwhile, anyone who can't hit it high, and carry it 230 or so, is left with a play that leaves them at 230-plus.

If I were in charge, the tree on the corner would either be cut down, or trimmed back to allow some room to hit a draw around it.

But the guys cutting the corner think it "makes the hole" and all the short hitters are so used to being punished by their course that they don't know any better.

Ken

[JESII]

Matt,

Your initial point is a good one, but the argument you've made with Mike Wagner fails...the top players of this decade hit about 50% of the fairways, how can you use Trevino's words in those interviews as Gospel in this day and age?

To the initial question...I think really firm maintenance is the #1 way to SUGGEST[/i] a particular shot off the tee, which would obviously be dependent upon the hazards in the driving area. But for holes that turn significantly, the only real way to provide an advantage to the player that can control the ball from side-to-side is with a tree or trees. Even #13 at Augusta wouldn't require a draw if not for the trees...

[Jason Topp]

Someone who can control such a shot should have an advantage that is not drowned out by someone else hitting the ball 30 yards further.  

Jason -

Care to tell me and the GCA brethren why should they have an ADVANTAGE over a longer player?  

The longer player already has a gigantic advantage on most holes and probably has the advantage on this type of hole as well.  The longer player can lay up with a straight shot off the tee and be more likely to be able to make up for that layup because he can handle the longer approach.  

Having some situations that reward someone able to work the ball inspires players to learn and control new skills.  That is one of the highest uses of hazards in my opinion.  It makes the game more interesting.

[Tim Gavrich]

I'm not convinced that today's golf clubs and golf balls "guarantee" straight shots.  I've hit and seen plenty of duck-hooks and slices on the golf course in my time and have never played with anyone who hit the ball consistently "straight."  Everybody I've seen--from 30 handicappers to PGA Tour pros--works the ball.  I'll concede that today's technology helps people hit shots straighter, but the game is still plenty difficult, and the ability to work the ball with regularity is still highly valued.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
I think donald Ross was given credit for introducing the 'Curving' hole to America, but that might just be conjecture on someone's part.

What can be said is that a 30 degree dogleg would be a silly hole, as 180 is a straight line, 90 looks like this: L,
and 30 looks like this:  V     
   

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

The balls today -- prior to the pullback on grooves allowed for guys to simply bang the ball as far as they want and STILL know they could spin the ball from nearly all situations -- save the most severe.

Trevino lived in a time when drivers were not the mega-head monsters you see today -- side spin was also something you needed to handle during his time. Players of today have no concept of what that was like given what they have grown up with in their overall development.

The roll back on spin will certainly add a different level of shotmaking than was there previously. The gorillas who buy the ball previously were not deterred by anything -- losing that spin advantage when off the fairway will help to some degree -- possibly to a larger degree than many might imagine.

Jim, I don't doubt having fast and firm conditions will help -- architects can check out any number of classic courses where turning points are front and center and use them as needed. I mentioned several of such holes at Winged Foot / West. Today's drivers are meant for flat out distance -- moving the ball is possible but marrying the two elements time after time is not an e-z proposition and architecture should be using this technique more and more to accentuate the idea that power and shaping of the ball is the most important element when stepping onto any tee box.

Jim, regarding #13 -- it's not the trees but the nature of the slope of the fairway that is an issue. Have you ever seent he hole firsthand -- not from TV ? The slope is painfully apparent for any player who gets too far right on the hole. The slope can serve as an ally if you hit the right spot for the ball to funnel.

Let me point out Doak used a somewhat similar concept on two of his most recent holes -- the 12th at Ballyneal and the 11th at Rock Creek are two that reward placement and shaping -- failing that the player will have their ball funnel to a considerably less advantage position. Getting players out of the mindset that power alone can win the battle will be helped with balls that spin less -- espeically out of rough lies and the like.

A number of the classic courses highlight this feature -- unfortunately, sometimes they have allowed the rough to grow so close to the fairway that the turning point element I mentioned is obscured and should be cut to allow for rollouts that can take you to a more favorable position and if slightly hit off line to roll towards less favorable positions.

Jim K:

Try to realize I was not a math major in college !

Getting holes to move in some form or fashion or to have ones with falloffs like the holes I mentioned to Jim S above from Doak is a good way to counter that. As a guy who can hit the ball a decent ways off the tee I am always looking for the way to take a hole out with one big blow -- if such hole(s) are simply straight ahead then it's up on the heels and fire away with little real impunity for strategic considerations. Working the ball provides a balance act that players would need and it tend to provide a better balance between naked power for power's sake and those who can marry sufficient distance and placement at the same time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
I am in concert with you, I think there are good examples of architecture that withstand the assault. It would be nice to see more of it.

[Bill Brightly]

It would be even better if the ball were rolled back and became again more workable. 

I could not agree more with this post.

While many of us complain about how far current balls fly, we forget that they fly MUCH straighter than the old balata balls. "Working the ball" today is a FAR different thing than 20 years ago...

I can't back this up with statistics, but I'll bet pros today intentionally "work the ball" by 10 yards or less, even with the driver. Today's ball flies incredibly straight for the top players.

[Matt_Ward]

Bill, et al:

Prior to the changing of the grooves for next year on the PGA Tour it paid for players of strength and those less so to simply bang the driver because even if they sprayed -- the spin situatilon was still present absent the most horrible of lies.

The changes on spin will impact players to be more cautious at times.

The bigger issue getting designs that make working the ball an element within the challenge presented from the layout itself.

Nothing can be worse than a dead straight hole -- it simply invites nothing more than brawn and elevates the power situation a good bit beyond what's needed from a balancing perspective between power and shotmaking.

[Matt_Ward]

One further thing -- I enjoy seeing designs that have placed tees in a wide variety of different angles -- stacking them up in a straight line does very little. Among the more recent courses I played -- the Nicklaus effort at Red Ledges uses this tactic quite often. Therefore the strain for the mid-level player is not as demanding as it is for those opting for the most rear tee position.

On the flip side I also played a new course near to Red Ledges called Victory Ranch and the Rees Jones layout simply placed one tee pad following the other -- in sum, it simply required a straight long tee shot -- something modern technology has provided.

Working the ball in conjunction with getting sufficient distance clearly puts those using such rear tee pads in linking the two items together.

Simply creating holes where pounding the ball is required does little on a range of fronts. Amazingly, a number of the classic courses used this technique but so few of the modern ones have incorporated this feature that I have seen / played.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()