Examples of holes mades better by the ball going further?

[Tom Birkert]

Watching the golf from Riviera which features my favourite short par 4 in golf (the 10th), it struck me that it could be an example of a hole benefitting from the extra distance the ball goes now.

The pros almost can't resist having a go for the green such is the distance they hit it these days. When they do that, they end up in all sort of trouble like being short right.

The sensible play has to be the lay up, but it's very difficult for them to do that when there's no water around the green, it's like they convince themselves that they'll be able to get up and down.

In the past reaching the green wasn't possible for most, so they would play it the conventional way.

There's such a wide variety of scores on the hole - already been a 7 today - and I think one of the reasons for that is the increased distance the balls go.

Any other such holes you can think of?

[Anthony Gray]

  Number 3 at Cruden Bay.The longer hitter can now be in danger of driving over the green into trouble.And the shorter hitter can challenge the green from the tee.

  Anthony

[Scott Warren]

3 and 16 at Deal - being in that 190-210 yard zone where you know you can get home but wonder if you should try is wonderful on both holes, with all sorts of shot options and is not something most golfers would have been able to enjoy 10-15 years ago.

Mike Clayton made the comment when discussing his redevelopment of Bonnie Doon (we have four holes between 287m and 301m) that short fours as a group have benefitted from the crazy distance we can all now hit the ball, because more golfers get to experience the thrill of going for the green, where previously a hole of those lengths was reachable for only very few golfers.

Of courses even now a hole that long is out of reach of most, but they thinkmaybe they can, which is the secret, I guess.

12 at Worplesdon is another that I feel has probably benefitted from extra length off the tee, perhaps many short fives (given I have now named three) fit in the discussion.

[Ian Andrew]

Pebble Beach 18th

The hole becomes even more dangerous and exciting when you can go for the green in two.

[Philippe Binette]

The Road Hole, depending on when you start your ball going further concept.

when it was hard to hit the ball more than 250 yards, I doubt there was a lot of guys really going for it in 2 at 470 yards par 4/5.
if everybody lays up, then it's all a game of position for a up and down,

[Doug Siebert]

TOC's 18th, as it brought the ability to drive the green to us mortals not named Nicklaus.

How much of this is due to simply the ball going further versus the driver being so much easier to hit well (or at least not hit terribly)  Sure, for a hole of a given length, adding 30 yards to your tee shots is a make or break thing.  But if Riveria's 10th or TOC's 18th had previously been shorter to match the same ratio of "average pro driving distance to hole length" as we see them today, I'm not sure you would see as many taking a crack at it.

Back in the days of persimmon drivers, a pretty small mishit really hurt.  Distance wise it wasn't a big deal, back in those days I'd always figure a really poor drive was no different than a layup, at least on holes where directional mistakes on short drives weren't too heavily penalized (think TOC's 9th)  While you certainly still lose distance today for poor contact, it is not anything like to the extent it was, to where directional mistakes in the ballpark of where you were aiming are more of an issue.  So you worry much more about trouble around the green on these driveable holes.  Trouble 80 yards short of the green is pretty much of a non-issue.  With today's equipment a good drive (not even perfect) can reach TOC's 18th, and I feel pretty safe trying it.  If I mishit it I'm just short, no big deal, it would take quite a wild hit, even for me, to find a place worse than where I'd be after a conservative layup.  Not sure if I would have done played driver if I'd played it back in the persimmon days, even if I thought I could have reached it with a perfect shot, simply because the mishits being worse would bring things like the big window of the Rusack's dining room potentially into play

[Jamie Barber]

How about the 10th at the Belfry - holes like that only really work because of the new technology. I guess it was really built that way though rather than "evolved" into what it is now through technology.

[Adam Clayman]

Where's our English teachers when we need them?

I noticed this in the new commercial with Tiger woods too.

Doesn't the ball go farther?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,

I think it is misleading to suggest the 10th at Riviera was "made better" by the ball going further.

There was always the option of just moving the tee further up.

[Matt_Cohn]

Where's our English teachers when we need them?

I noticed this in the new commercial with Tiger woods too.

Doesn't the ball go farther?

Yes Adam. Farther is a distance, further is a concept. "We're pushing technology further and further so the ball goes farther and farther."

That said, "Where is our teachers?" has some issues of its own.  :-D

[Garland Bayley]

Can't be very many holes made better by the ball going further. All the ball going further does is separate the players farther apart making it even more difficult to make good holes for all the players.

[Jason Topp]

Geoff Shackelford's book identified the 13th at Augusta National as a hole that got worse by increased driving distance.  I believe his book predated the lengthening that happened a few years ago.  Has that lengthening restored the difficulty of the decision on the 2nd shot?

[Melvyn Morrow]

I understand your comments, although do not necessary agree with some or to be honest with all as I feel it’s clearly shows that something is amiss in the game or design process relating to our game of golf.

 I would first ask how many actually played these holes with the clubs available at the time of the original design or modification and you have compared it with your current clubs hence your comments. Please this is no criticism but trying to understand,  no,  make sense of the question ‘Examples of holes made better by the ball going further?’

If the point is to fly over the course with minimal contact with said course then the question make sense, however the game of golf is based upon navigating the natural ground, to offer the challenge that generated both fun and skill. What I see in the question is what I have been fighting for many years, controlling technology so this sort of thing does not happen.

We have within a decade or two rendered past designs and rich and quality courses null and void or at least next to bloody useless, because we can now drive the Greens. It takes away at a stroke the need to have or pay for designers or shapers, its kill the need to form, shape or drain the land, effectively only have the Greens maintained.  Great Holes are now redundant, but at what a cost, because only a small percentage of golfers are able to drive a long shot.

We need to raise these questions with the courses and clubs concerned, advising that the holes have been improved due to the ability to hit the ball further, perhaps they would like to speak to the designer and ask why he did not consider the problem why are they maintaining so much of the course when it’s not in play and why spend all that money building the courses with drainage and hazards when they will not come into play.

The point being IMHO its ruining the game and the courses, it seems to represent the very opposite of what the designer is trying to achieve, Nevertheless by careful placement of pot bunkers these holes can be returned back a playable Hole, that is if anyone gives a damn.

Look at the next three aerial photos of the 18th Hole on TOC and note the contours and the Valley of Sin, now some can drive the Green missing  what I consider is the whole point of the game of golf  - of course you guys may disagree.
 

High Aerial view of the 18th TOC


 Closer shot of the 18th TOC


Another shot of the 18th TOC


Melvyn

[Paul Stephenson]

Why were the contours removed from the first fairway, yet kept on the 18th?

[Mark McKeever]

Paul,

I was wondering the same thing...

Mark

[Melvyn Morrow]

Paul

In part because it is reclaimed land from the sea

Melvyn

[Paul Stephenson]

Paul,

I was wondering the same thing...

Mark

Great minds think alike.  Even greater ones come up with the answer.

Thanks Melvyn

[Joe Bausch]

A friend of mine made the case for the 18th hole at Applebrook (Hanse).  When the course opened around 2000 this finishing par 4 that runs a bit uphill to an elevated green was awfully long (454 yards).  With the ProV1 generation of golf balls, a long iron or hybrid in for most better players is preferred over a fairway metal with that deep fronting bunker:

[Phil Benedict]

17th at Baltusrol; 16th at Firestone South or any other par-5 that used to be a 3-shotter which can now be occasionally reached in 2 by the longer hitters.  I have a bias against 3-shot par 5's.

[Doug Siebert]

Can't be very many holes made better by the ball going further. All the ball going further does is separate the players farther apart making it even more difficult to make good holes for all the players.

This is true, we may play a course in 1990 and then return in 2011, and perhaps I find that one hole got "better" for me because its now driveable so I have an option other than a boring layup.  But perhaps for another guy who doesn't hit it so far it is still a boring layup.  However, another hole on the course might become better for him - maybe a par 5 that becomes reachable and he now has an option, or even a par 4 that he had to play as a three shotter that's now in range.  But those holes for me don't become better, and might even become worse (i.e., the par 4 might now be a short iron approach for me which takes away me giving a crap about angles since I'm just going to stick it close....or at least that's the plan )

As someone else pointed out, yes to some extent you can control this via where you put the tees, but that's only true on holes where the changes in the landing area and angles don't matter.  If you would have wanted TOC's 17th to play like it does for me today back in 1985 you'd have had to move the tees up.  Well, that's a problem, you can't do it without changing the angle and the whole thing about driving over the 'O' in "hotel" (hmmm....maybe back in 1985 I would have wanted to drive over the 'O' in "course" since I wouldn't have carried it as far)  Its not even remotely the same hole if you played it from 425-430 yards because of where the teebox would have to be located.  On the other hand, the 18th hole could have played at 320-325 and back then and would have been pretty much the same as what I play today - my previous caveats about persimmon versus today's drivers notwithstanding.

[Tony Ristola]

Melvyn,

I think your point is spot on... plus... when many of these courses were constructed the ground was harder and faster. They were managed differently. So the ball rolled longer distances during certain times of the year and assisted with forcing the game where you had to consider the contours when chosing your shot into the green. I was lucky to grow up playing such a course.

In countries where the small ball was in play, the ball traveled farther; of course the R&A wisely changed to the large ball to restore challenge and integrity. Sadly the governing bodies don't do the same today; travesty actually.

As for holes made better? Yes some may be better, and some courses too, but the trade-off is lopsided in favor of destruction of golf holes and courses (for the better player). For the masses it doesn't much matter.

.

 

[Doug Siebert]

Melvyn,

Regarding your point about the contouring on TOC's 18th being missed by players driving the green.....if the equipment was rolled back and I could no longer drive the 18th what stops me from driving out into that nice flat ground in the 1st fairway?  True, I have to play over the Valley of Sin, but I have to play over it from pretty much anywhere except the far right side of the fairway.  I would never aim there as the OB that lurks there is obviously worse than the near automatic three putt the VoS gives you (not to mention the cars parked along the side and the many windows across the narrow road)  Since my typical miss with a wedge (pretty much everything, actually) is a pull, even playing a clublength from the OB could put me in the VoS if I aim at any left side pin...

If I didn't have the option of playing for the green, I'd probably aim directly at the golfers teeing off the first hole with my 1 iron, with the idea of ending up with around 100 yards or so.  This would give me a nice wide angle that would effectively deepen the green and take the "oh crap I thinned my wedge off the tight lie and killed a Japanese tourist taking pictures behind the green" shot out of play.  Playing off the uneven lies found at TOC is always a crapshoot, and its only worse with a wedge and OB directly behind the green.  So given that there's a flat area to be had why would I not take advantage of it?

So I really don't think I'm missing much on the 18th taking a crack at the green, though as I've said many times on GCA I believe the ball needs to be rolled back, and wouldn't shed a tear if changes to the equipment made it impossible for me to do so in the future.  I'm more worried that the USGA and R&A won't even rein in future advances and when I'm 65 I'll STILL be able to take a rip at it there, and I'll see a 20 year old in the group ahead of me driving it with a hybrid

[Bill Brightly]

Where's our English teachers when we need them?

I noticed this in the new commercial with Tiger woods too.

Doesn't the ball go farther?

Yes Adam. Farther is a distance, further is a concept. "We're pushing technology further and further so the ball goes farther and farther."

That said, "Where is our teachers?" has some issues of its own.  :-D

Shot! Score!

[Mark Pearce]

Where's our English teachers when we need them?

I noticed this in the new commercial with Tiger woods too.

Doesn't the ball go farther?

Yes Adam. Farther is a distance, further is a concept. "We're pushing technology further and further so the ball goes farther and farther."

That said, "Where is our teachers?" has some issues of its own.  :-D

Shot! Score!

Not quite.  The Concise Oxford English Dictionary would appear to suggest that further was acceptable usage in the first place.  But I laughed out loud at Matt's post.

[Bryan Izatt]

Melvyn,

Regarding your point about the contouring on TOC's 18th being missed by players driving the green.....if the equipment was rolled back and I could no longer drive the 18th what stops me from driving out into that nice flat ground in the 1st fairway?  True, I have to play over the Valley of Sin, but I have to play over it from pretty much anywhere except the far right side of the fairway.  I would never aim there as the OB that lurks there is obviously worse than the near automatic three putt the VoS gives you (not to mention the cars parked along the side and the many windows across the narrow road)  Since my typical miss with a wedge (pretty much everything, actually) is a pull, even playing a clublength from the OB could put me in the VoS if I aim at any left side pin...

If I didn't have the option of playing for the green, I'd probably aim directly at the golfers teeing off the first hole with my 1 iron, with the idea of ending up with around 100 yards or so.  This would give me a nice wide angle that would effectively deepen the green and take the "oh crap I thinned my wedge off the tight lie and killed a Japanese tourist taking pictures behind the green" shot out of play.  Playing off the uneven lies found at TOC is always a crapshoot, and its only worse with a wedge and OB directly behind the green.  So given that there's a flat area to be had why would I not take advantage of it?

So I really don't think I'm missing much on the 18th taking a crack at the green, though as I've said many times on GCA I believe the ball needs to be rolled back, and wouldn't shed a tear if changes to the equipment made it impossible for me to do so in the future.  I'm more worried that the USGA and R&A won't even rein in future advances and when I'm 65 I'll STILL be able to take a rip at it there, and I'll see a 20 year old in the group ahead of me driving it with a hybrid

Doug,

How old are you?  How far do you drive the ball? The hole is 340 yards.  Have you often driven it?

To help you in planning for your playing strategies in your older age; from my experience, when you get to be 65, using "rip at it" and "65" in juxtaposition will be a bit of an oxymoron.