[jeffwarne]

I find it very amusing that, in spite of the vast improvements in technology, conditioning, length off the tee, 180 8-irons, etc, the average for GIR hasn't really improved over the past 40-50 years!    This leads me to believe the short game is a bit more important today because scoring is a little bit lower today.    The smoother, faster greens today almost might be responsible, more six footers being made.   

Bill,
think of it another way.
If your long par 4 was driver 5 iron before (260 +180)= 440
and today's long par 4 is driver 6 iron (300 +190)=490
Everything is the same size as before the fairway width, the green size, the hole, but the game is played from a greater distance+

I'd rather be trying to hot a green from 180 with a 5 iron than 200 with a 6 iron-you're still 2 yards further away!


Add to that on the modern tour course you're ofeten taking a drop after a wayward shot, rather than carving a ball out of a bare lie in the unirrigated rough or woods on tour courses of a previous generation.

[BCrosby]

"If your long par 4 was driver 5 iron before (260 +180)= 440
and today's long par 4 is driver 6 iron (300 +190)=490
Everything is the same size as before the fairway width, the green size, the hole, but the game is played from a greater distance+"

Jeff -

Your yardages sound about right. But they only hint at the extent to which golf courses need to be lengthened to match the distances modern players hit the ball. Taking your example, if you want players today to approach with 5i's (as they did in your example from, say, 1980) then your par 4 needs to be lengthened from 440 to 500 yards. That's a 60 yard increase, roughly 15%.

If that sounds about right and you want a course today to play as a 7000 yard course did in 1980, then you would need to lengthen it by about 15%. By my math that is a course of 8000 + yards. Apples to apples, that is how long a modern course needs to be to play to the same length that a 7000 yard course would have in 1980.

That is freaking mind-boggling.

To return to the thread topic, a 7200 yard course today is short for modern players. It plays like a 6500 yard course would have in 1980. Which suggests that - since the short game is always more important on short courses - the short game is more important today than it used to be.

Back in 1980 they actually played on lots of courses that played quite long. That doesn't happen today. Virtually all courses today play like short courses.

Bob  

[jeffwarne]

"If your long par 4 was driver 5 iron before (260 +180)= 440
and today's long par 4 is driver 6 iron (300 +190)=490
Everything is the same size as before the fairway width, the green size, the hole, but the game is played from a greater distance+"

Jeff -

Your yardages sound about right. But they only hint at the extent to which golf courses need to be lengthened to match the distances modern players hit the ball. Taking your example, if you want players today to approach with 5i's (as they did in your example from, say, 1980) then your par 4 needs to be lengthened from 440 to 500 yards. That's a 60 yard increase of almost 15%.

If that sounds about right and you want a course today to play as a 7000 yard course did in 1980, then you would need to lengthen it by about 15%. By my math that is a course of 8000 + yards. Apples to apples, that is how long a modern course needs to be to play to the same length that a 7000 yard course would have in 1980.

That is freaking mind-boggling.

To return to the thread topic, a 7200 yard course today is short for modern players. It plays like a 6500 yard course would have in 1980. Which suggests that - since the short game is always more important on short courses - the short game is more important today than it used to be.

Back in 1980 they actually played on lots of courses that played quite long. That doesn't happen today. Virtually all courses today play like short courses.

Bob  

Bob,
I'm with you on the math.
But remember today's 6 iron is AT Least yesterday's 5 iron in shaft length and loft.(doesn't make the club any easier to hit, just sells more sets to chumps)

Also, and this is the fallacy when setting up courses for women who demand the same club into a green.
A player hitting 7 iron from 100 yards out should be able to hit it closer than a player of equal skil (but not length) hitting a 7 iron from 170.

So just because a player is hitting a 7 iron into a green today(from say 180), doesn't mean the hole is the same challenge as a player hitting 7 iron from significantly closer(say 150) 40 years ago(unless the green and cup were proportionately larger)

that said, that's why I agree with the changes at ANGC (except for #7)
It used to be a long course, and now it is again
Sadly, it didn't have to come to this

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

I take your point that today's 6i is yesterday's 5i.

To reflect that in my distance math, that means - to get historical apples to apples - modern courses need to be extended 10+%.

To get a modern course to play like a 7000 yard course did in 1980, it will need to be at least 7700 yards. Historically speaking, that's a medium length course. A 7400 yard course today plays like a 6700 yard course in 1980.

Which, to repeat myself, is why the short game is so much more important today than it has been historically. Virtually all modern courses play like short courses circa 1980..

I've got no problem with the new tees at ANGC. At least they are facing the distance problem honestly. They aren't done lengthening. They just bought land for a new back tee for the 5th. It's the narrowing of corridors done by new trees and rough that I've got a problem with. But that's a different set of issues.  

Bob

 

[jeffwarne]

Jeff -

I take your point that today's 6i is yesterday's 5i.

To reflect that in my distance math, that means - to get historical apples to apples - modern courses need to be extended 10+%.

To get a modern course to play like a 7000 yard course did in 1980, it will need to be at least 7700 yards. Historically speaking, that's a medium length course. A 7400 yard course today plays like a 6700 yard course in 1980.

Which, to repeat myself, is why the short game is so much more important today than it has been historically. All virtually all modern courses play like short courses.

I've got no problem with the new tees at ANGC. At least they are facing the distance problem honestly. It's the narrowing done by new trees and rough that I've got a problem with at ANGC. But that's a different set of issues. 

Bob

 

Agreed 100% with the above.

[Jud_T]

I find it hard to believe that GIR stats weren't lower in Bobby Jones' day when guys had to actually hit long irons and fairway woods into greens.  FYI-Bubba Watson hits 59% of greens when he's NOT in the fairway.  Exhibit A for Bomb & Gouge...

[Joe Leenheer]

I am surprised only some have touched on this yet..

The short game is more important today because..the condition of the greens and surrounding areas are much different/better/tougher.  With the introduction of the USGA green, newer or renovated golf courses are able to control/push the conditions of greens while maintaining turf health.  If the course is really well off, it might even have the mystical sub-air thus giving the super another leg up.  Not to mention the different types of grass that are being developed to be faster and firmer.

My facility did the XGD drainage thing about 10 years ago.  Our Professional Emeritus holds the course record at 61 and said to me "that was on a completely different golf course".  We've hosted a couple local PGA events and the lowest score to date is 66 (I shot 67 and finished 2nd...plug).   

Tour players are seeing tougher, firmer, and faster greens on a consistent basis (and so are you) and thus must be able to hit all the crazy flop-a-dopolis shots we love to watch.  Bunkers are being dug deeper (again).  Rough is healthier and longer.  And unfortunately the courses are getting silly long meaning longer shots in which equals to more greens missed.

IMO as a teaching professional, there are three ways to improve your score; 1. Put your drive in play more consistently 2. improve your short game.  3. Move up a tee or two. 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Does it depend on the way the course is set up? We've had what you might call freak winners in a number of Open Championships, and when the US Open was held at Shinnecock in 2004 some strange things happened. Did the setup identify the best golfer that week?

When, occasionally, I play with a really low handicapper (around scratch) I think the quality I notice most about their play is that if occasionally they get out position their next shot puts them back in position A, whether it's a deft chip, a long iron from the woods or a long bunker shot. They are also able to see the shot they are required to play realistically. They understand the ball's trajectory and can predict its behaviour on landing. Where I have only one option when I am out of position they, very likely, have a choice of shots.

In our club foursome knock-out this year I was drawn with a scratch player who regularly drives 320-340 yards. On those holes on which he drove I was playing second shots from places entirely novel to me. It put many par 4s normally out of reach of two of my shots back in reach, even two of the par 5s. I felt wonderful. If I missed the green he would recover close enough for me to have a tap in putt for par. When I drove, his second shot was being played from positions 100-150 yards short of his normal. This was where his game excelled. He played magnificent long shots into the greens with clubs he would never normally dream of using - even the driver from the fairway on one hole after a particularly weak tee shot of mine. On one hole I drove into a bunker which is normally out of my reach. I would have to try to wedge it out. He hit the ball 190 yards onto the green with a 6-iron. It is that vision and the ability to adapt to the unfamiliar that sets that sort of player apart. Remember Ballesteros?

[Bill_McBride]

Mark, the round you describe about perfectly describes my foursomes match at Muirfield with Philip Gawith (the "African Animal") as my partner.  We both hit approaches from places where we never hit approaches.   It was great fun.   I love foursomes, one of the reasons I love Buda as we never play foursomes over here.   Too bad.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()