[Patrick_Mucci]

SHORT for the PGA TOUR Pros.

It's a wonderful, really wonderful golf course, for the rest of the golfing world, but, it's just too short for the best golfers in the world.

[Sam Morrow]

Wasn't this discussed a few weeks back?

[Sean_A]

So what?  is the tour short of courses that are appropriate for their ability? 

Ciao

[Dan Boerger]

Pat - Probably.

Just like much of the nuance of Merion will likely exist about 40 yards below the drives of many a touring pro.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

Agreed. But is it strictly the length of the course, or the length of the course relative to the features and condition of the course?

Is Harbour Town too short for the pros? Would Prairie Dunes be too short? Cypress Point? All short or shorter than Plainfield, but with a different set of features and conditions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wasn't this discussed a few weeks back?

It might have been, but, how many discussing the issue played the course right before or right after the Barclay's ?

David Madison,

Today, the PGA Tour Golfers would torch Prairie Dunes and CPC.
The only defense these courses have is the weather

Plainfield is a wonderful golf course.

When playing the 9th hole, 368 from the tips, and about 350-355 from where we played it, our caddy and one of the members of our foursome, who attended the Barclays, told us that some of the Pros were driving up, over the bunkers fronting the green.
That's an uphill drive to a plateau requiring a carry of about 340 yards.

What features are courses now going to place at a 320-350 DZ that don't unduly penalize the mediocre to poor golfer ?

There simply isn't any way to force the PGA Tour Pro to interface with the intended features on existing courses.

Sean Arble,

Absolutely.

[C. Squier]

Fences are too short in MLB
Rims are too low in NBA
Rinks are too small in NHL

Why can't the everyman accept that the BEST ATHLETES IN THE WORLD may actually make their game look easy?  Who gives a crap if Plainfield is "too short" for the PGA....it's perfect for 99.999% of the golfing public. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Fences are too short in MLB
Rims are too low in NBA
Rinks are too small in NHL

Why can't the everyman accept that the BEST ATHLETES IN THE WORLD may actually make their game look easy?  Who gives a crap if Plainfield is "too short" for the PGA....it's perfect for 99.999% of the golfing public. 


Clint,

When a club elects to hold competitions, be it at the State, Regional, National or PGA level, those competitors should be challenged, they should be forced, by design, to interface with the architectural features.  That's no longer happening at Plainfield.

And, length, super length isn't confined to the PGA Tour.
At a recent charity event at Plainfield, with damp fairways, on the 16th hole, they had the long drive contest.
I hit a very good drive, carried about 250, rolled back about six inches.
The long drive was at least 80 yards past me.

The young guys playing in front of me and behind me were hitting drives that would have been inspiring to Nicklaus and Palmer.
Do you think that they were the equal of Nicklaus and Palmer in terms of them being the "best athletes in the world" ?

If you don't understand the distance problem, just say so.

[C. Squier]

Fences are too short in MLB
Rims are too low in NBA
Rinks are too small in NHL

Why can't the everyman accept that the BEST ATHLETES IN THE WORLD may actually make their game look easy?  Who gives a crap if Plainfield is "too short" for the PGA....it's perfect for 99.999% of the golfing public. 


Clint,

When a club elects to hold competitions, be it at the State, Regional, National or PGA level, those competitors should be challenged, they should be forced, by design, to interface with the architectural features.  That's no longer happening at Plainfield.

And, length, super length isn't confined to the PGA Tour.
At a recent charity event at Plainfield, with damp fairways, on the 16th hole, they had the long drive contest.
I hit a very good drive, carried about 250, rolled back about six inches.
The long drive was at least 80 yards past me.

The young guys playing in front of me and behind me were hitting drives that would have been inspiring to Nicklaus and Palmer.
Do you think that they were the equal of Nicklaus and Palmer in terms of them being the "best athletes in the world" ?

If you don't understand the distance problem, just say so.

Since when did distance = greatness?  There have been many who have shot free throws better than Jordan or could throw a football further than Marino....but certainly nobody is claiming to be better athletes than these guys.  Last time I checked, greatness in golf is defined by getting the ball in the hole, not by hitting it far.

Did this young whippersnapper break the course record too?  Or was their greatness confined to a door prize of their choice?

[Dan Boerger]

In golf course design, distance is the primary defense on most any golf hole. This is not suggesting distance = greatness, or lack of, otherwise.

I can speak first hand what happened at Aronimink. The touring professionals took many a feature that members play totally out of play. The fairway bunkers on #6 and #11 come to mind.

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick, two questions:

1.  What was the score of the winner of the long drive contest?
2.  What would YOU do about this issue?

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Since when did distance = greatness? 

In golf, especially competitive golf, "distance" has been synonymous with greatness.

All of the great players were long for their time.
Have their been a few exceptions, not really, some great players just weren't as long as others, but they hit the ball a long distance.

There have been many who have shot free throws better than Jordan or could throw a football further than Marino....

Could you name them ?

but certainly nobody is claiming to be better athletes than these guys. 

Last time I checked, greatness in golf is defined by getting the ball in the hole, not by hitting it far.

Then you don't understand cause and effect.

Did this young whippersnapper break the course record too? 
Or was their greatness confined to a door prize of their choice?

Given the fact that he's a weekend golfer, his focus isn't on competitive golf, but, if you don't see or understand the trend I can understand your position.

Why do you think they're stimping greens at 13 or more ?
Why do you think they're growing dense rough 6" ?
Why do you think they're lengthening tees ?

Is it to combat athleticism or distance ?

And, the two aren't interchangeable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Agreed. But is it strictly the length of the course, or the length of the course relative to the features and condition of the course?

David,

Lengthening a tee can certainly bring the features in the DZ back into play, but that process seems to be never ending.

You can equalize what "classes" of golfers face off the tee.

But, from there on it, you can't.

If, from the DZ, the approach shot is 170 yards, how do you equalize the challenge for golfers who hit an 8 iron 170 yards and golfers who a 3-iron, rescue or 3-wood 170 yards ?

I think that's a, if not THE problem architects face today.

Years ago, the disparity between the great, good and mediocre golfer wasn't that broad.  Today, there's a huge gap.

So, if, the disparity off the tee can be equalized, how do you equalize it from the DZ to the green without unduly penalizing the good, mediocre and poor golfer ?

Do you bifurcate the I&B ?
Do you roll back the I&B ?

Or, do you just allow the gap to get wider ?

[Mike Hendren]

I would argue that the 9th at Plainfield is a more strategic hole for the big hitter.  Those crossing bunkers are extremely deep and the man who boldly carries them - no small feat even with today's technology, deserves the simple pitch that remains.  The shorter or less sure player is faced with a blind approach.  The risk/reward is commensurate - the successful big hitter gains a half stroke advantage from the tee.  What's so bad about that?

[SL_Solow]

Clint;  The problem with your analogy is that it is false.  Putting aside Ruth etc., nobody is hitting the ball further or more often than Mantle or Aaron, putting aside the steroid aberrations.  The main reason is that the equipment has remained relatively constant.  Bats are still wooden and while the ball varies slightly from year to year, it is essentially the same.  Incidentally, the better conditioning and nutrition is avaialbel to MLB players as well.  Basketball, shooting percentages have not improved although I would agree overall athleticism has increased.  Still, are the current stars doing things that Jordan and Magic et al couldn't do in the mid to late 80's?  Then compare driving distances between now and the 80's.  The middle of the pack on tour today would have led the tour in the mid 80's.  It changes the way the courses are played even if, in the end, the short game may ultimately separate the winner from the loser.  the difference is, it may separate different winners from different losers because by removing the impact of much of the architecture and the attendant demands, a greater premium is placed on length.  While length was always an advantage, the penalties for "long and wrong" were greater.

The other sport where equipment has significanly changed the game recently is Tennis.  The new rackets allow players to hit with greater topspin on low balls (note the prevalence of western grip forehands) which has almost eliminated serve and volley tactics and even reduced net rushing on short balls.  they are still great players but the all court game is vanishing.

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,

Plainfield is listed at 7,400 yards, which is bordering on US Open length. Wasn't the tremendous scoring at the Barclays more a factor of wet conditions? Doesn't that negate drives rolling out into the rough and allow players to shoot for the flag on every occasion, knowing the ball will stop promptly? Didn't they play lift-clean-and-place?

Every course is short by PGA Tour player standards, but with hard, firm greens, the scoring would likely have been much different. The only solution to the problem is a roll-back on technology. The amateurs proved a 7,800 yard course at Erin Hills wasn't overly taxing, as ten under won the medallist and an under par score was needed to make match play. Without a healthy wind and firm, fast greens, yardage does not seem to be a factor amongst the upper elite of the game.

TK

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

As I suspected, the carry you are talking about is nowhere near 340 yards. Why not stick to the facts?

[C. Squier]

Yes, hitting the ball the furthest in a home run contest is obviously going to show who is best.  However, golf doesn't boil down to who hits it the furthest as driving is just one part of this very difficult game.  Ever watch a long drive contest?  Those boys aren't cashing checks on any Tour.  My point about Jordan and Marino is that even though many people can do one small facet of their game better than they can, MJ and DM are still much better at the game as a whole.  I'll certainly concede that hitting it further may be a characteristic of a great player, but its not a means to an end as many wish to believe.  The only thing a person can conclude about a long hitter is that they swing hard.

Why people give a darn if golf courses are somehow easier to play for the .001% of the golfing population blows me away.  There isn't one person on this message board that can say Plainfield is obsolete to them.  Why the Bubba Watsons of the world can get so many old men's panties in a bunch just eludes me.  I'd bet good money that the back tees at Plainfield and pretty much every other golf course on Tour are made up of virgin grass on a daily basis.  The black tees at OFCC certainly are, but yet the conversation of how we can make it longer still persists.  Fact is, the game is still very difficult for the VAST majority of players and what Tour players do is a complete oddity.  The only courses becoming obsolete to technology are the ones whose members are all playing with one foot off the back of the back tees.  Few of those exist. 

Clint;  The problem with your analogy is that it is false.  Putting aside Ruth etc., nobody is hitting the ball further or more often than Mantle or Aaron, putting aside the steroid aberrations.  The main reason is that the equipment has remained relatively constant.  Bats are still wooden and while the ball varies slightly from year to year, it is essentially the same.  Incidentally, the better conditioning and nutrition is avaialbel to MLB players as well.  Basketball, shooting percentages have not improved although I would agree overall athleticism has increased.  Still, are the current stars doing things that Jordan and Magic et al couldn't do in the mid to late 80's?  Then compare driving distances between now and the 80's.  The middle of the pack on tour today would have led the tour in the mid 80's.  It changes the way the courses are played even if, in the end, the short game may ultimately separate the winner from the loser.  the difference is, it may separate different winners from different losers because by removing the impact of much of the architecture and the attendant demands, a greater premium is placed on length.  While length was always an advantage, the penalties for "long and wrong" were greater.

The other sport where equipment has significanly changed the game recently is Tennis.  The new rackets allow players to hit with greater topspin on low balls (note the prevalence of western grip forehands) which has almost eliminated serve and volley tactics and even reduced net rushing on short balls.  they are still great players but the all court game is vanishing.

[Jason Topp]

I agree with the general principle that a course hosting a significant event should challenge the participants.  I see that as more of a factor related to how the course plays rather than scores.  If the hazards test all aspects of a player's game, it can provide a challenge even if the effective par is 68.

I can't really comment on Plainfield based on the limited play shown on television.  Nonetheless, I think it is a little tough to know whether the course provided an adequate challenge given wet conditions and (I believe) lift clean and place rules in effect.

A decent analogy might be Blue Mound in the US Amateur which played 1-1/2 strokes over par during qualifying compared to Erin Hills which averaged 3 strokes over par.  My understanding is that the competitors enjoyed Blue Mound and expected to score much better than they did.  It seems to me that they were challenged by both courses.

[JNC Lyon]

SHORT for the PGA TOUR Pros.

It's a wonderful, really wonderful golf course, for the rest of the golfing world, but, it's just too short for the best golfers in the world.

Why does this matter?  Why does it matter for Plainfield?  Why does it matter for any golf course that isn't a TPC course?  Any course that isn't too short for a PGA Tour pro is too long for 99.99% of all golfers, meaning it is more expensive to construct and maintain than is necessary.

Who gives a damn if a course is too short for PGA Tour pros?  Frankly, my dear, I only give a damn if a course is long enough for Tour pros, because it might be detrimental to the game of golf as a whole.

[David_Madison]

Pat,

You said that there wasn't any way to get PGA Tour pros to interact with the architecture. Absent wind and/or ground conditions that make the ball move somewhere once it's landed, I tend to agree.

Then, how do we explain Harbour Town? It's not overly firm, and wind isn't a huge factor except occasionally for perhaps the final holes along the water. The greens are small and flatish, and not overly irregularly shaped (except for a limited number of greens like #17). The course is not more than 7,000 yards. Yet clearly the players are interfacing with the architecture. Trees that force players to certain lines or spots and doglegs that turn at shorter distances than the players' capacity to drive the ball would seem to be doing the trick here.

There are other examples from tour courses where the players' raw length doesn't help. Riviera #10, Muirfield Village #14, the third hole at Pinehurst #2, even #17 at TPC Scottsdale. Are these holes oddities, holes that force players of all lengths and abilities to interface with the architecture? I know that these are isolated holes on these courses, but wouldn't a course that has a lot of these types of elements be enjoyable for its membership while still posing an interesting challenge for the best players in the game?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I would argue that the 9th at Plainfield is a more strategic hole for the big hitter.  Those crossing bunkers are extremely deep and the man who boldly carries them - no small feat even with today's technology, deserves the simple pitch that remains.  The shorter or less sure player is faced with a blind approach.  The risk/reward is commensurate - the successful big hitter gains a half stroke advantage from the tee.  What's so bad about that?

Mike, because he gains another half stroke on # 4, another on # 18 and probably another on # 15.  That's two full strokes per round, 8 per tournament.  That's a pretty big advantage.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Plainfield is listed at 7,400 yards, which is bordering on US Open length. Wasn't the tremendous scoring at the Barclays more a factor of wet conditions? Doesn't that negate drives rolling out into the rough and allow players to shoot for the flag on every occasion, knowing the ball will stop promptly? Didn't they play lift-clean-and-place?

Conditions were wetter than normal.
As to the "roll out" with such high launch angles, I think "roll out" is less and less of a factor.
And, if a ball can roll into the rough, it can also roll out of the rough.

In watching tour events this season I haven't noticed many firm greens repelling balls.

Every course is short by PGA Tour player standards, but with hard, firm greens, the scoring would likely have been much different. The only solution to the problem is a roll-back on technology. The amateurs proved a 7,800 yard course at Erin Hills wasn't overly taxing, as ten under won the medallist and an under par score was needed to make match play. Without a healthy wind and firm, fast greens, yardage does not seem to be a factor amongst the upper elite of the game.

That's my point, you can't defend a course through length alone, you have to gimmick it up to make it relevant and that can't be good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

As I suspected, the carry you are talking about is nowhere near 340 yards. Why not stick to the facts?

The carry is 340 yards.

Your problem, not an uncommon one, is that you've probably never been on site at # 9 at Plainfield and have no understanding of the play of the hole and the carry distances required.

So, I'll again correct you on the matter.
Nobody plays down the right side since it's very narrow and the rough is brutal in that location.
In addition, drives hit right require that the golfer carry the two greenside bunkers with their approach.

In order to carry the left side bunker a drive must carry 340 yards, uphill.

To carry to the top of the first right side bunker, at the elbow of the narrowest part of the fairway is 298-295.
But, that won't put the player in the fairway at the begining of the plateau, as the bunker is cut into the hillside with about another 5 yards of rough.
To carry to the top of the 2nd right side bunker, is 297-305.  But again that won't put the golfer in the fairway at the begining of the plateau as nother 5 yards is required to do that.
To carry the last left side bunker is 342.

And those distances are elevated well above the tee, meaning that the carries, on level land, would be farther.

On # 18, which is steeply uphill, they were driving over the green with fairway woods, and that's 302 to the back of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SHORT for the PGA TOUR Pros.

It's a wonderful, really wonderful golf course, for the rest of the golfing world, but, it's just too short for the best golfers in the world.

Why does this matter?  Why does it matter for Plainfield?  Why does it matter for any golf course that isn't a TPC course? 
Any course that isn't too short for a PGA Tour pro is too long for 99.99% of all golfers, meaning it is more expensive to construct and maintain than is necessary.

JNC, you're forgetting that the PGA Tour Pros play from different tees than do 99.99 % of all golfers.

Who gives a damn if a course is too short for PGA Tour pros? 

Because, chances are, from the forward tee, it's too short for today's better or long hitting amateurs.
They no longer interface with the architectural features.

Recently, I played with a 5 handicapper, who, on the second hole of Trump Bedminster, drove it 40 yards from the green from the blue tees.

He's a young man with a family and a business who doesn't devote a lot of time to golf.
If he did, his handicap would be lower and the architectural features would become more and more meaningless to him.

That's my point
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()