[Patrick_Mucci]

straighter shots or a tighter shot pattern, have flanking features lost some of their effectiveness ?

Does the golfer interface with them less ?

Tangentially, should more bunkers be moved or sited more within the playing corridors ?

Are centerline bunkers and crossbunkers an improvement on flanking bunkers ?

With the emphasis on the aerial game, should more greens have fronting bunkers which MUST be challenged ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty's citation, which I'll post below, is a perfect example of a hazard/bunker intended to directly interface with the golfer at the green.

here is a description of the 6th (then the 3rd) from the New York Times in 1916:

The 3rd hole is 427 yards, par 4, and the best way to play it is to "cross a fence before you come to it."  In other words the shortest route to the green is across the corner of somebody's corn lot, with an open shot to the green if the carry is made, and a half dozen assorted shots back to the fairway if the ball falls short.  The golfer who plays safe by taking the dog-leg journey to the right toward the green will hardly reach his destination in two strokes,as there is a pit just short of the green directly in his path, and placed there for the express purpose of thwarting his intentions. [/color]

 

[Dean Stokes]

Pat, with all do respect this 'tighter shot pattern' you mention is in effect for approx 1% of golfers. I play with club golfers of all abilities and believe me when I say that flanking hazards are very much a part of our round!!!!!

[Phil_the_Author]

YEs!

I'm actually in complete agreement with Dean's statement in that it applies to the top 1% of golfers. The problem as I see it is that too many new courses and many of the old ones are being designed or redesigned based upon how these players play.

[Lester George]

Patrick,

Generally speaking....yes!  Although we must be sure not to over do it.

Lester

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

In general, almost any bunker and bunker concept should be a bascially equal value in shot making, no?  If one hole has a carry bunker, the next a flanking bunker, then a center bunker, followed by perhaps no fw bunkers, then a distance limiting bunker, aren't those all a type of challenge a golfer might have to deal with?  Add in the differences of making those flanking/carry/distance limiting ponds or creeks and their bigger penalties, and I think that in general, there should be no two fw with the exact same challenge.

Specifically as to flanking bunkers, I see the need to elongate them down the fw these days (budget permitting) because a flanking bunker at a specific distance challenges so few players.  The alternative is to make sure they are placed at slightly different "effective" distances off the tee, since a 266 yd (or whatever) driver hits different distances up hill, downhill, downwind, etc., not to mention they hit it more and less pure with every shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

What about at the green end ?

[jeffwarne]

Pat, with all do respect this 'tighter shot pattern' you mention is in effect for approx 1% of golfers. I play with club golfers of all abilities and believe me when I say that flanking hazards are very much a part of our round!!!!!

I don't observe a "tighter shot pattern" in my students, myself, or TOUR players.
Their Fairways in regulation stats don't seem ant higher than 20 years ago, and anecdotally, they're still all over the place-maybe more so

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, with all do respect this 'tighter shot pattern' you mention is in effect for approx 1% of golfers. I play with club golfers of all abilities and believe me when I say that flanking hazards are very much a part of our round!!!!!

I don't observe a "tighter shot pattern" in my students, myself, or TOUR players.
Their Fairways in regulation stats don't seem ant higher than 20 years ago, and anecdotally, they're still all over the place-maybe more so

Interesting.

I've noticed that I'm far, far more accurate with my drives with today's equipment.
Maybe, after you get on Medicare you get a fairway discount.
Since I've been playing my Ping Eye 2's for 30 years, I can't make a thorough evaluation relative to today's equipment, but, I noticed a substantive difference, which caused me to switch from my McGregor and Tommy Armour irons

Both Greg Norman and Hale Irwin told me that it's much more difficult for them to move the ball, that they tend to hit it straighter and have to exagerate their swings in order to get the same movement that they used to get with older I&B..
Maybe they don't know what they're talking about.

As to the stats, in my limited observations, fairways are much narrower today than they were decades ago.

[John Shimp]

I wonder if Patricks point has a hdcp distinction?  For single digits that aren't swinging from their heels on tee shots I agree that the new equipment makes it a lot easier to hit it straight -- toe shots don't snap and heels don't squirt they just don't go as far or fly as high.  For weak players I think the new equipment let's them hit more shots that go really far and high and the titillation of those great shots keeps their thrill seeking high and discipline low. For these players, the full course is always in play.

[JESII]

I think a benefit of more centrally located is hazards is that you can then have fewer of them.

[jeffwarne]

Pat, with all do respect this 'tighter shot pattern' you mention is in effect for approx 1% of golfers. I play with club golfers of all abilities and believe me when I say that flanking hazards are very much a part of our round!!!!!

I don't observe a "tighter shot pattern" in my students, myself, or TOUR players.
Their Fairways in regulation stats don't seem ant higher than 20 years ago, and anecdotally, they're still all over the place-maybe more so

Interesting.

I've noticed that I'm far, far more accurate with my drives with today's equipment.
Maybe, after you get on Medicare you get a fairway discount.
Since I've been playing my Ping Eye 2's for 30 years, I can't make a thorough evaluation relative to today's equipment, but, I noticed a substantive difference, which caused me to switch from my McGregor and Tommy Armour irons

Both Greg Norman and Hale Irwin told me that it's much more difficult for them to move the ball, that they tend to hit it straighter and have to exagerate their swings in order to get the same movement that they used to get with older I&B..
Maybe they don't know what they're talking about.

As to the stats, in my limited observations, fairways are much narrower today than they were decades ago.

Pat,
congratulations on your driving prowess-from what I've heard, you drove it pretty well before.
It's harder to curve the ball, but that doesn't mean it starts on line-and the guy who's underneath the plane and used to have it draw back leaves a lot to the right that would've drawn back 20 years ago.
Neutral plane players (of which there are more today)do benefit more, and those swinging slightly outside in can fade it and still get pretty good power, so I'd say on balance you're probably right for the typical modern pro.
Your anecdotal evidence comes from the greatest driver in history and one of the greatest fairway wood players in history.

[Tim Gavrich]

Personally, I'd kill to have the same problems that Norman and Irwin are experiencing.  The day I hit it "too straight" will be a joyous one.

If the dispersion patterns for golfers have gotten tighter, then this would seem to indicate that flanking features are still catching shots--they're just catching worse shots than they used to.  I wonder if this might actually be a good thing.  If this is part of what's going on, then architects who are designing courses to test the world's best players ought to pay special attention to flanking hazards, especially off the tee, where technology seems to help disproportionately more.

I can't think of a course that seemed to pose a better challenge to the world's best players and exact the proper penalties for poor tee shots more judiciously than Oakmont.  It also seems to be the case that Oakmont is more thoroughly fairway-bunkered than any other recent major championship golf course.  As a result, he who drove the ball especially well (Angel Cabrera) was able to parlay that advantage into a U.S. Open victory.  I'd say that Oakmont identified the best player that week in large part because of the importance of its flanking hazards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, with all do respect this 'tighter shot pattern' you mention is in effect for approx 1% of golfers. I play with club golfers of all abilities and believe me when I say that flanking hazards are very much a part of our round!!!!!

I don't observe a "tighter shot pattern" in my students, myself, or TOUR players.
Their Fairways in regulation stats don't seem ant higher than 20 years ago, and anecdotally, they're still all over the place-maybe more so

Interesting.

I've noticed that I'm far, far more accurate with my drives with today's equipment.
Maybe, after you get on Medicare you get a fairway discount.
Since I've been playing my Ping Eye 2's for 30 years, I can't make a thorough evaluation relative to today's equipment, but, I noticed a substantive difference, which caused me to switch from my McGregor and Tommy Armour irons

Both Greg Norman and Hale Irwin told me that it's much more difficult for them to move the ball, that they tend to hit it straighter and have to exagerate their swings in order to get the same movement that they used to get with older I&B..
Maybe they don't know what they're talking about.

As to the stats, in my limited observations, fairways are much narrower today than they were decades ago.

Pat,
congratulations on your driving prowess-from what I've heard, you drove it pretty well before.


Thanks, now if I could just hit my irons better, I'd be in good shape...    Then, I could spend more time working on my putting

It's harder to curve the ball, but that doesn't mean it starts on line-and the guy who's underneath the plane and used to have it draw back leaves a lot to the right that would've drawn back 20 years ago.

If that guy was that accurate, he's adjusted to a ball which curves less.
I used to draw the ball back to target, now, it's far less so.
It also means that the guy who hits it off plane won't have the ball curve MORE out of control, thus, shot patterns are tighter with a non-curving ball

Neutral plane players (of which there are more today)do benefit more, and those swinging slightly outside in can fade it and still get pretty good power, so I'd say on balance you're probably right for the typical modern pro.

Jeff,

I think it probably extends all the way up to a 10-12 or perhaps higher handicap.
I do have a friend who continues to hit his driver off the planet, but, he hits it 300+ and has a drastically different plane on the way back than he does on the way forward.

You would have us believe that perimeter weighted irons and larger faced metal drivers with more perimeter weighting have had absolutely NO effect on ball flight for every level of golfer and I don't think that's true.

In my limited observations over the last few decades, I know that's not the case.

Your anecdotal evidence comes from the greatest driver in history and one of the greatest fairway wood players in history.

Correct, and if they CAN'T curve the ball at will without exagerated efforts, how can a lesser player curve the ball with their LIMITED skill ?

Perimeter weighted clubs have improved shot patterns.

And, the game has become almost exclusively aerial

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()