[Bill Brightly]

I played with a really good, really long hitter yesterday in a member guest. We played the forward tees, and a few short doglegs and a couple of creeks kept the driver out of his hand on all but 7 holes (should have been only 6...) He never hit driver on back-to-back holes and never got into a rhythm with the big stick. I could see him getting frustrated. I'm not as long as him, so I hit driver far more often and scored much better.

This got me to wondering if a defense against the bombers is to move them up and present real trouble for them if they play bomb and gouge. In other words, instead of building more back tees, which plays into their strength, move the tees UP on holes with real trouble at the 280 mark, and make them play smart. Keep them off balance with the par 3's and short par 4's.

Do you think this is a design concept that has merit?

[Steve Kline]

It certainly seems better than adding length. Even as long as Erin Hills was the players were saying they were hitting short clubs even into the long par 4s.

[Bill McKinley]

It definitely seems to be that case that length is not a viable defense anymore.  I would think things like taking the driver out of the long hitters hand by doglegs, bunkers and such is a great way to combat it.  Most architects will say that right now giving the good player flier lies in the rough with firm greens is a greater defense than a 490 yard par 4.   

[Mac Plumart]

I don't have an answer, but it certainly appears we are losing the game.  The powers that be don't want to bifurcate the game, but it sure seems like it is bifurcated already.  Perhaps the PGA Championship this year highlighted the different games the PGA guys play vs. the rest of us.

[Mark Smolens]

Young Mr. Cantley's play on 15 the second time through would seem to illustrate this point. "Forced" to lay up with 8 iron, he pulled it into the bunker. Remarkably poor play from a guy whose play has been at an extraordinarily high level for most of the summer.

[Bill Brightly]

I guess the best known example of this is the 8th hole at Pebble Beach, where a cliff demands a layup and monster length is of little help, except that big hitters can use a more lofted club to lay up.  But forced layups can be tedious. So maybe an answer is more sand bunkers at 280-300 and/or a pinching of the fairways at that length.

[John_Conley]

Absolutely this has merit.  However, remember that a long hitter should have an advantage.  Maybe 14 holes where they have a big fairway with little penalty for erring is too much, but a golf course that turns every fairway at 260 with a forest on the interior isn't a solution either.

[Phil Benedict]

I think the game loses something when it takes driver out of play. On the other hand, the game has probably already lost something when a par 4 has to be 520 yards to be considered long.

[Greg Tallman]

Young Mr. Cantley's play on 15 the second time through would seem to illustrate this point. "Forced" to lay up with 8 iron, he pulled it into the bunker. Remarkably poor play from a guy whose play has been at an extraordinarily high level for most of the summer.

Mark, I was going to use that hole and outcome as an example but the hole only played 253 yards in the afternoon. Can a hole of 253 that forces the best amateur, and arguably one of the best 50 or so players, in the world to lay up be viewed as anything positive?

This is one we could really go back and forth on but it seems the shot to the green offered little in way of reward. I suppose some of the guys could hit something high enough to have a chance but not many.

Question: Is this a perfect half par hole? Better played at it's intended yardage of 370? or just a failed attempt at a short par 4?

[Greg Tallman]

I guess the best known example of this is the 8th hole at Pebble Beach, where a cliff demands a layup and monster length is of little help, except that big hitters can use a more lofted club to lay up.  But forced layups can be tedious. So maybe an answer is more sand bunkers at 280-300 and/or a pinching of the fairways at that length.

280-300 doesn't get it done any longer. These guys are considering carries of 325+

[Sean_A]

Absolutely this has merit.  However, remember that a long hitter should have an advantage.  Maybe 14 holes where they have a big fairway with little penalty for erring is too much, but a golf course that turns every fairway at 260 with a forest on the interior isn't a solution either.

A long hitter does have an advantage if he can consistently hit the ball straight.  Distance is its own reward.  I see no reason why at a certain distance the player is relieved of his responsibility to be accurate.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I mentioned this in a thread a couple of years back and I'll go ahead and mention it again.

There is a course in the SLC, UT area that had a pretty interesting way of handling this.  Instead of putting more bunkers or water hazards in the 270-300 yard range they approached it with a different strategy....partially undulating/heaving fairways.

Most of the non par 3 holes were designed such that for the 1st 250 yards off the tee, the landing areas are relatively flat.  But once one gets past the 250 range, the fairways were built a lot of undulation with big humps, hollows, and ridge lines.  So the long hitter could hit it 280, but they were faced with a fairly good chance that they would have an odd stance or hanging lie on one of these undulations.  While the everyday joe who hits 220 off the tee had a nice level lie and can easily carry over the undulating pieces of ground on thier 2nd shot. And it didn't look odd because the entire course sits on a very hilly site that is naturally up and down.

I know its not perfect, but I thought it was a creative way to handle the distance problem without putting in lots of bunkers or letting the rough grow crazy high. 

[Ian Andrew]

Accurate length is an advantage. I don’t believe it’s my role to work against anyone who hits the ball a long way. I think my role is to make them play better shots to keep their advantage over other players.

I don’t believe in the ACC bunker squeeze at 280-330 because it ignores too many other players.

The best answer has always been a long slowly curving fairway that allows a longer player the opportunity to hit driver as long as they work the ball in the direction of the turn in the hole or play an extremely accurate shot off the tee.

[Garland Bayley]

Absolutely this has merit.  However, remember that a long hitter should have an advantage.  Maybe 14 holes where they have a big fairway with little penalty for erring is too much, but a golf course that turns every fairway at 260 with a forest on the interior isn't a solution either.

A long hitter does have an advantage due to his length (if directionally controlled). However, he should be made to demonstrate directional control at that length. The best example I can think of is Bandon Trails, where many of the bunkers are placed for the long hitter to interface with.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't think the long hitter should face more hazards/rough/penalties than the shorter hitter.  i.e. courses should not require him to be more accurate as well as longer. 

[Garland Bayley]

I don't think the long hitter should face more hazards/rough/penalties than the shorter hitter.  i.e. courses should not require him to be more accurate as well as longer. 

Then you will just have to agree to disagree with me.


And with John Low.

And with Bernard Darwin.

And Harry Colt.

And Vernon Macan.
 

[Ian Andrew]

One of the greatest flaws in thinking I see continually crop up on this site is the desire to try and apply standards or formulas to design. Great design is counterintuitive to convention. The greatest holes are often the ones that are the least conventional and the least obvious. The same goes for strategy and play.

I find so many comments on architecture take on a defensive stance to the game, when great architecture is more about the possibilities than the penalties.

[Garland Bayley]

Ian,

Is it not good to have some principles, which have generally been shown to be violated as need be in some of the designs by the masters who put forth such principles, than to not have any principles at all. Should the designer just put in the top shot bunker and the pond on a whim? As opposed, to having a principle that these things should be severely restricted if used at all?

[JMEvensky]

I find so many comments on architecture take on a defensive stance to the game, when great architecture is more about the possibilities than the penalties.

That's really good.

Do you think the "defensive stance" contingent gets in the way of making the game fun?The game is very difficult for everyone--irrespective of the architecture.

What would happen to a golf course which advertised its fun quotient--would it be considered light weight?

[Ian Andrew]

[Do you think the "defensive stance" contingent gets in the way of making the game fun?

Yes

What would happen to a golf course which advertised its fun quotient--would it be considered light weight? 

Not any more - Pacific Dunes made a huge imapct on the perception of what is good

[Bill Brightly]

One of the greatest flaws in thinking I see continually crop up on this site is the desire to try and apply standards or formulas to design. Great design is counterintuitive to convention. The greatest holes are often the ones that are the least conventional and the least obvious. The same goes for strategy and play.

I find so many comments on architecture take on a defensive stance to the game, when great architecture is more about the possibilities than the penalties.

Ian,

I agree and I was certainly not advocating an entire strategy of defeating the long hitter. I simply noted how a true bomber gets frustrated when he never gets into a "driver rhythm" because of par 3's and a few short par 4's with doglegs. I wondered if that concept had design merit.

By the way, this course has a superb set of blue tees (7100), some add 50-60 yards, and it is an excellent test of golf for all good players. the guy in question was dying to play those tees!

[Jim Nugent]

I don't think the long hitter should face more hazards/rough/penalties than the shorter hitter.  i.e. courses should not require him to be more accurate as well as longer. 

Then you will just have to agree to disagree with me.


And with John Low.

And with Bernard Darwin.

And Harry Colt.

And Vernon Macan.
 

So you reward someone for being shorter and wilder? 

[Garland Bayley]

I don't think the long hitter should face more hazards/rough/penalties than the shorter hitter.  i.e. courses should not require him to be more accurate as well as longer. 

Then you will just have to agree to disagree with me.


And with John Low.

And with Bernard Darwin.

And Harry Colt.

And Vernon Macan.
 

So you reward someone for being shorter and wilder? 

As they say, being wild is penalty enough. There is no reward for being shorter and wilder. Besides, why would you want to put penalties in the way of the people who pay the bills?

If one player is longer with his driver than another, and the driver brings a hazard into play for him. He still has an advantage of hitting the shorter club more accurately to the same place the other player tries to hit his driver. If he can't hit a shorter club more accurately than his shorter hitting opponent hits his driver, then he needs to consider why he is trying to hit the ball so hard in the first place.

[Carl Rogers]

Why not look at this issue from the design and definition of the landing zone and work backward to the various tees that golfers of different tees shot lengths should be playing?

I do not think that the designer should ever (very rare exceptions like the 8th at PB) take the driver out of the hand of any golfer.

[Sean_A]

Carl

What do you mean by take the driver out of the hand?  For some that means the risk is too great to hit driver and for others it means a well struck driver on line will not only not be rewarded, but may well be dead.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()