[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I can understand that but more than likely the degree of exposure likely has a major role in determining if such players have the elasticity to see why such elements have been included.

Some will never "get it" but others just might.

[Garland Bayley]

The issue Doug mentions is tied to the fact that compared to the older persimmon clubs -- the larger-sized heads are easier for most people to hit -- doesn't mean to say one hits it perfectly -- but that one can hit it more often than previous models and when hit the likelihood of straighter shots is there -- when combined with the ways golf balls are constructed today.

The issue is really being ablt to work the ball on command when needed -- shaping shots with the driver is another matter indeed.

Where are the stats that say the larger-sized head are easier for most people to hit? People are not stupid. You give them a VW Bug on a stick and they will whale away. You give them a persimmon driver and they will adjust their swing to what is appropriate.

IMO people trust their driver more now, because the ball allows them too. The last 10 years with a straighter flying  ball means players don't have to go to the 3 wood to get the back spin to try to get the ball to fly straighter.

Being able to work the ball on command is also a function of the modern ball vs the old ball. It is not a function of large driver head vs. small driver head.

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

Take off the dark sunglasses -- a driver head of 460cc is easier to hit than the old persimmon clubs which were in the 175-190cc sizes. You state they would be able to "adjust" -- they do adjust better with the larger size ones.

Do the math -- I simply said easier to hit -- didn't say it meant they would always hit it straight and long.

I also mentioned how the ball adds to the difficulty in getting the ball to move both ways easier with today's technology.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim:

I can understand that but more than likely the degree of exposure likely has a major role in determining if such players have the elasticity to see why such elements have been included.

Some will never "get it" but others just might.

Matt,

I agree that individual experience and exposure plays a large role here and it is difficult to generalize.  However, I would say that what is true of most golfers tends to be even more true of low handicap players--they want their hazards on the sides and they want well-struck shots rewarded with perfect lies in the fairway or straightforward putts on the green.  We non-low handicap players are more used to bad results. 

[Tom_Doak]

Purely anecdotal, but I played CommonGround yesterday with a low handicapper and he was quite put off by some of the features--cross bunkers, undulations in greens and fairways--that, in his view, punished or failed to adequately reward well-executed shots. 

Tim:

If you would not mind sharing the specific features your fellow golfer disliked, I'd be curious to hear about it, for purposes of determining whether to do less of something in the future, or MORE of it.

[Fred Yanni]

I played in college and still carry an index of 3.0 or below so I will chime in here.

First, it is golf, there are no "certain" outcomes so lets drop that word from the discussion.  As for the word obvious, I can't name a course I have played in 35 years that didn't offer a chance of achieveing the desired or "obvious" outcome for well played shots. 

Shot outcomes are 100% random on any type of course.   A "good" player's advantage is in his ability to increase the chance of achieveing the desired or obvious outcome on any given shot over other players becuase he has a higher probabilty of hitting to a spot where the chance for success is greatest.  Does that mean the desired, "obvious" or "certain" outcome will occur, of course not.   

Personally, I love all types of courses and golf holes as long as on average they are fair (don't have to hit it 300 yards to be in the fairway) and in general shots hit to where they should be hit to are rewarded the majority of the time.  If you are a good player you should love course and hole variety and love to be challenged on a course by having to use every club in the bag, I certainly do.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think everyone keeps score, in one way or another. But sometimes golfers aren't aware of how or to what degree they are keeping score until after they've finished a round. Which makes an architect trying to satisfy all these kinds and degrees of potential 'score-keeping' a real challenge, it seems to me. Best I think to play the percentages and make scoring relative and graduated/progessive, i.e. since the percentage of all golfers who are high-to-mid-handicappers is large, create a course that allows all of them to 'score' and to 'keep score' in a myriad of ways (e.g. fewest number of double-bogies; fewest number of lost balls; most pars); and since the percentage of all golfers who are genuine low-handicappers is small, have that same course allow a few of them much less varied ways to 'keep score' (e.g. lowest actual score), and make that self-appointed task harder to achieve. And sure - doglegs can be part of that. 

Sorry - I've just rambled on and now realize people have been saying the above for a hundred years and much more clearly than i just did.

Peter

[Tim Pitner]

Purely anecdotal, but I played CommonGround yesterday with a low handicapper and he was quite put off by some of the features--cross bunkers, undulations in greens and fairways--that, in his view, punished or failed to adequately reward well-executed shots.  

Tim:

If you would not mind sharing the specific features your fellow golfer disliked, I'd be curious to hear about it, for purposes of determining whether to do less of something in the future, or MORE of it.

Tom,

There was a fair bit of grumbling going on (as I said, I even heard a complaint about the green to tee transition areas, e.g. 7/8, 17/18--something about "tees in the middle of the fairway"), but the ones I remember well are:  (1) hitting a drive on the screws on #15 only to see it fail to clear the large bunker on the left, resulting in a chip out on a hole his opponents receive a stroke; (2) the buried elephant in the green on #16 (which he noted is getting a little bare on top) which impacted his chip from the right of the green to a front pin; and (3) hitting another big, straight drive on #18 that ended up on a sidehill lie in the left of the fairway, leading to a misplayed hybrid.  

P.S. I don't think it's a coincidence that his complaints were mostly voiced toward the end of the round in which a 10 handicap and a 9 (who both have more experience at CG) were taking money from him.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Thanks for the recap.  If I posted it to my associates most of them would be thinking, "Yes!!"

So your man hit it into a fairway bunker, hit the wrong side of the green, and couldn't hit a hybrid off a sidehill lie to take advantage of his length?  We apologize for testing him so thoroughly.

Of those, the only one I wondered about in the field during construction was the bunker on 15.  There's a similar one on #13, both of them put in by Eric Iverson, who is the best golfer on my team -- he's broken 70 at Common Ground before.  He just thought that it was so easy to hit the ball long in Denver, that there ought to be a couple of holes where the long hitters' landing area had a bit of severe trouble for them to avoid.  I decided not to worry about it because you have to hit it 300 yards from the back tee to reach those bunkers, and most people aren't going to get there.  I can see, though, where a 300-yard hitter would think all the fairway bunkers should be 200 or 250 yards off the tee.  I just wouldn't agree.

[Scott Szabo]

Tim,

Maybe he shouldn't have aimed so far left on 15?  You should have suggested that to him while he was chipping out to the fairway

Be sure not to bring him out to Ballyneal - I can hear the grumbling already....

"So your man hit it into a fairway bunker, hit the wrong side of the green, and couldn't hit a hyrbrid off a sidehill lie to take advantage of his length?  We apologize for testing him so thoroughly."  -  Instant classic!

[Tim Pitner]

Tom and Scott,

If it weren't clear already, please know that I don't share my man's sentiments.  

Re: #15, I suspect he fell victim to something I myself have done on occasion--taking on a bunker that may be driveable (at least potentially) but which is either actually a hazard that one should tack around or doesn't yield that much advantage even if it is cleared.  I put the bunker on #15 and the bunker on the left side of the fairway on #18 that comes into play off the tee in the former category and the cross-bunker on #3 in the latter (there's a hollow on the far side of that bunker that brings the tee shot to a premature end).  I like that as a device to call out suckers (whoops, that's not the line!), although it shouldn't work on the same player repeatedly, if they're sensible.  

I also suspect my man thought the penalty for hitting into the bunker on #15 was too severe, especially since it's a long par 4.  Again, I don't see the problem.  

[Doug Siebert]

This thread made me think about the dichotomy for some good players of F&F conditions.  Those who hit it straight love the extra roll they get.  Those who are not so straight perhaps don't like that their short but straight buddies are driving it as long as they are thanks to the extra roll versus their lack of roll when landing in rough or bunkers.  They'll bitch and moan about rock hard greens, like it is some divine right to be able to stick a wedge.

These are the guys not to invite on a trip to Scotland or Ireland.

[Matt_Ward]

Generally speaking -- exposure really helps beat back sheer ignorance.

There are certain low handicap types who feel the slightest "rub of the green" bounce that's not in their favor is a grave injustice. Doug is spot on -- leave them home when going overseas to the UK and Ireland.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()