Long driving is not a crime

[Tim Liddy]

"Long driving is not a crime--it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force. Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers.
"

ALISTER MACKENZIE

How do you take the great Doctor’s quote (it was on Shack’s site today)?

I agree he is saying give the long driver plenty of width and maybe a shorter approach shot in some cases, BUT not the best angle into the green without challenging some type of hazard, which is the essence of strategic golf and is taken for granted by Mackenzie in this quote.

Would the modern golf ball and driver change his mind today?

[Tim Nugent]

I am of the belief that it would.  Bomb and gouge wasn't even contemplated back then.  I also don't think that the rough was as playable/conditioned as todays.

Just try a long drive with a Haskell ball and a hickory driver - takes much more skill than a 460cc driver and a ProV1.

If things are not kept in context, they tend to get distorted.

[John Moore II]

No, the ball and driver wouldn't change his opinion. Frankly, if you don't like guys who can hit the ball a long ways, get over it and figure out how to hit it farther yourself. Why should someone who can hit the ball 350 yards down the center not be rewarded over someone who can hit it 250?

[Ian Andrew]

Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers.
"

Tim,

I don't think they should have greater latitude, but I also don't see length as a crime. I think we spend far too much time designing to control length when the reality is most of our collective ideas have played directly into the hands of the longest player. If you want to combat length, build shorter courses, it takes away the advantage of the longer players and puts the entire field into the hunt that week.

I have no idea if he would change his mind, but I thought he went through the change brought on by the Haskell ball.

[Tom_Doak]

Dr. MacKenzie liked nothing more than trying to figure out ways where the long bomber would get himself into trouble.  But the quote above is right in general ... if the guy who hits it 20 yards farther hits it where he wants, he should gain an advantage by doing so.

MacKenzie would also realize that shorter courses give the bomber more trouble than long ones.

Ian:  You were one step ahead of me there.

[Jason Topp]

I recall Pete Dye saying recently (in the last 10 years or so) that he no longer rewards long hitters with a better angle into the green because length has become a big enough reward in and of itself.  Is he right?

[John Moore II]

I recall Pete Dye saying recently (in the last 10 years or so) that he no longer rewards long hitters with a better angle into the green because length has become a big enough reward in and of itself.  Is he right?

Yes, I think he is. Angle matters less when you can hit a sand wedge or lob wedge into a green, rather than a 7 iron.  And I also recall Mr. Dye saying that classic designers would have done stuff a lot differently if they designed today.

[Tim Liddy]

I recall a conversation when Mr. Dye was discussing the tougher angle for the long hitter philosophy with Jim Hardy (who was working on a design with Peter Jacobsen) and Hardy felt the opposite philosophy was a better design. The long hitter should get the better approach angle and rewarded for his length. Maybe that is why long tour players like their golf design and short tour players like Dye’s?

And yes, it is preferred to do both concepts on every golf course but every architect has his preference.

An interesting side note, Jim Hardy as a young man caddied for Pete Dye at Prairie Dunes in a national USGA event ( US Amateur?).

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe that is why long tour players like their golf design and short tour players like Dye’s?

Tim:

That's interesting.  In the 80's, some of the short hitters were convinced that Pete was trying to design them right off the Tour.  I remember asking Pete what he thought of that, and his response was similar to John K. Moore's, that if Jack Renner couldn't hit the ball even 250 yards with modern equipment, he probably didn't belong out there no matter how accurate he was!

[archie_struthers]

 

Ian quite good , design a course with a bunch  390 yard gnarly par fours , throw in a few front bunkers and false fronts and leave the bombers little 50-60 yard half wedges ....quite good indeed

[Tom_Doak]

Archie:

I was playing golf yesterday with a couple of college players from Cornell here in Scotland, and I went back and forth to different tee boxes from one hole to the next, based on which one would give them a more awkward half shot to the green, or where there might be a bunker 320 yards out.  They had no idea why I was making those choices, of course.  But I still lost on the 16th, dammit.

[archie_struthers]

 

You'll figure out there weakness and get them TD  , for sure you.. ll outwit them in time.  Make them play the low skipper off a downhill lie

[Sean_A]

Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers.
"

Tim,

I don't think they should have greater latitude, but I also don't see length as a crime. I think we spend far too much time designing to control length when the reality is most of our collective ideas have played directly into the hands of the longest player. If you want to combat length, build shorter courses, it takes away the advantage of the longer players and puts the entire field into the hunt that week.

I have no idea if he would change his mind, but I thought he went through the change brought on by the Haskell ball.

Ian

No question about it.  The best way to challenge long hitters is to shorten courses.  The longer the course, the better chance the bomber has - assuming all other things are equal.  That said, imo, nearly every touring pro is a bomber.  So once again, we must restrain ourselves from looking at this question from a top player perspective - its a waste of time. 

Generally speaking, I see nothing wrong with a hole or two which rips the driver out of the hands of long hitters, but the overall trend should be more toward requiring the bomber to take calculated risks and if he pulls it off he is rewarded with a shorter approach, a better angle, a view of the green, a better stance or any combination of these.   

Ciao   

[Jim Sweeney]

I've had this conversation with several tour players. To a man they felt that the longer hitters should have more room in their landing areas, since it is harder to keep a longer shot on line for its duration.

I disagree. Why should the longer hitter be given such an advantage? Why should he not  be held to the same standard? One could argue that the shorter hitter should have a width advantage since he has to play a longer approach.

A few years ago Tiger Woods won the Open Championship, and hit driver only something like four times all week, taking his distance advanatage away in favor of positiion. The ability to knock it long does not demand that one always use that advantage.

I suppose, though, that most courses that are considered excellent designs include a mix of risk/reward scenarios that balance the advantages and disadvantages of players with different capabiities.

[Sean_A]

I've had this conversation with several tour players. To a man they felt that the longer hitters should have more room in their landing areas, since it is harder to keep a longer shot on line for its duration.

I disagree. Why should the longer hitter be given such an advantage? Why should he not  be held to the same standard? One could argue that the shorter hitter should have a width advantage since he has to play a longer approach.

A few years ago Tiger Woods won the Open Championship, and hit driver only something like four times all week, taking his distance advanatage away in favor of positiion. The ability to knock it long does not demand that one always use that advantage.

I suppose, though, that most courses that are considered excellent designs include a mix of risk/reward scenarios that balance the advantages and disadvantages of players with different capabiities.

Bizarre thinking by pros.  Take out of the equation how far people can hit the ball.  Now, should not the tee ball which has the best of what is on offer have to be a more challenging shot?  OK, sometimes that means just hitting it long, but I would hope that most of the time, to earn the best of what is on offer, one must focus more on accuracy.  Usually the accuracy will be in tandem with length - giving the ultimate in reward.   

Ciao 

[Matt_Ward]

Often times the real insights on the matter of rewarding / penalizing long hitters is tied to the person themselves -- are they a long or short hitter and how they view such things from the "I" perspective.

The short hitters always whine about their lack of wherewithal to hit the ball a sufficient distance and usually want to flip the issue towards one of fairness and balance -- the reality is more self derived than anything else.

Jim S:

Tiger didn't need to hit driver because Hoylake was as hard as an Interstate ... it was the only play in order to score effectively.\

Sean, et al:

The silly notion that all tour pros are bombers in terms of length is quite nice in theory / conjecture but not actual.

Like I said the people who bitch about length usually don't have it in their own game.

[Richard Choi]

I disagree. Why should the longer hitter be given such an advantage? Why should he not  be held to the same standard? One could argue that the shorter hitter should have a width advantage since he has to play a longer approach.

Jim, they certainly should be held to the same standard, which is exactly why the landing area for long hitters should be wider.

Let's say you have a short hitter who drives 220 yards (about average for 16 handicapper). If that person misses the target by 3 degrees, that means that he will miss the target by 11.5 yards wide, which is probably still in the fairway for a 30 yard wide fairway.

Compare that to a long hitter who hits 300 yards. If that person misses the target by 3 degrees just like the short hitter, he misses his target by 15.7 yards. Now he is now hitting from the rough even though the missed by the same amount as the short hitter, even though it requires greater skill to be accurate at higher speed.

If you want to hold players to the same standard, you need to have a wider landing areas for long hitters.

[Jud_T]

If a guy blows it 50 yards by me on the correct line, he should have an advantage.  The crime is not in distance but in courses whose main defense is length....

[Sean_A]

I disagree. Why should the longer hitter be given such an advantage? Why should he not  be held to the same standard? One could argue that the shorter hitter should have a width advantage since he has to play a longer approach.

Jim, they certainly should be held to the same standard, which is exactly why the landing area for long hitters should be wider.

Let's say you have a short hitter who drives 220 yards (about average for 16 handicapper). If that person misses the target by 3 degrees, that means that he will miss the target by 11.5 yards wide, which is probably still in the fairway for a 30 yard wide fairway.

Compare that to a long hitter who hits 300 yards. If that person misses the target by 3 degrees just like the short hitter, he misses his target by 15.7 yards. Now he is now hitting from the rough even though the missed by the same amount as the short hitter, even though it requires greater skill to be accurate at higher speed.

If you want to hold players to the same standard, you need to have a wider landing areas for long hitters.

I have never heard of such backward thinking.  What, can't a guy tone it down?  No, the guy going for the big ball to gain whatever advantage is on offer should more often than not have to pull off an excellent shot.  There isn't much point in rewarding big balls for the sake of it especially when it can be bought at the pro shop.  No, if a guy wants to bang, he must take the blame if he isn't dead accurate. 

Ciao

[Richard Choi]

I have never heard of such backward thinking.  What, can't a guy tone it down?  No, the guy going for the big ball to gain whatever advantage is on offer should more often than not have to pull off an excellent shot.  There isn't much point in rewarding big balls for the sake of it especially when it can be bought at the pro shop.  No, if a guy wants to bang, he must take the blame if he isn't dead accurate. 

Sean, that is certainly a valid design decision one can take. However, if that is the philosophy, you have to also admit that you are requiring long hitters to higher standard.

[BCrosby]

If a guy blows it 50 yards by me on the correct line, he should have an advantage.  The crime is not in distance but in courses whose main defense is length....

Exactly. It is an example of a larger architectural crime - courses that play easiest for the best players and hardest for the weakest players.

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

It might be nice to unearth things a bit deeper if people would add a bit more on the personal disclosure side -- how far
do they hit it -- carry and total distance.

Where one often stands is usually based on where one sits.

[Garland Bayley]

No, the ball and driver wouldn't change his opinion. Frankly, if you don't like guys who can hit the ball a long ways, get over it and figure out how to hit it farther yourself. Why should someone who can hit the ball 350 yards down the center not be rewarded over someone who can hit it 250?

Because to build a golf course to suit the situation you have to tack on an extra 100 yards per hole to accommodate the long driver over the olden days when the same differences were 250 yards and 170. Do the math! You are talking about a course perhaps 1800 yards longer than the course Dr. MacKenzie was talking about. That's more unneeded cost. In addition, you have to add more tees because there is 30 more yards in the differences between the relative players capabilities. More unneeded cost.

Furthermore, much of the extra yardage you are speaking of comes from engineering tricks with the ball. How many layers did the gutta percha have? Compare that to what I saw at Golfsmith last weekend. Balls with five layers! 

[Tim Liddy]

From an article I did in 2002 called Democratic design.

Figure 1 on left is one concept of strategic design, giving advantage to the long hitter.
Figure 2 moves the bunker into the long hitter's landing area and provides width and approach angle to the short hitter (and long hitter if he challenges the bunker). Essentially, the longer the drive, the tougher the approach angle (but a shorter shot).

It does not take into effect the 3 dimensional nature (blindness, wind, topography) of golf design that affects both strategies.

[Paul Stephenson]

Archie:

I was playing golf yesterday with a couple of college players from Cornell here in Scotland, and I went back and forth to different tee boxes from one hole to the next, based on which one would give them a more awkward half shot to the green, or where there might be a bunker 320 yards out.  They had no idea why I was making those choices, of course.  But I still lost on the 16th, dammit.

The old Pro at our golf course had a bumper sticker that read, "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill."  Thanks for reminding me of him.  He was a really good person to us juniors at the time.

Shouldn't you guys be in Syracuse and not Scotland?