Long Drives - Is there no ARCHITECTURAL defense

[Mark_Fine]

#5 is a very good hole for most golfers but not for the big hitters.  Most would tee off with an iron as you run out of room quickly on the left.  It's a forced layup off the tee for them, but still a two-shot hole!

[TEPaul]

Pat:

This is an interesting thread you've created--although one we've been over before on Golfclubatlas many times in one way or another.

But there definitely are a number of things that can be done architecturally that can create a defense against excessively long drives and at the same time not make things harder for higher handicappers but in fact make things far more interesting for higher handicapper (and perhaps even very strong players too).

In a nutshell that would be to combine architectural features (hazard features mostly) that would basically somewhat effect excessively long drives and at the same time somewhat effect second shots (or semi-recovery shots) of higher handicappers.

An architect such as Steve Smyers seems most interested in this particular application (in an effort to counteract excessive length through creative architecture).

All that should work quite well and not just in theory. However, there is a single caveat to all this which probably to a large degree prevents it from being done more in architecture.

And unfortunately that caveat is the KNOCK on any architecture that does or appears to TAKE THE DRIVER OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE STRONG PLAYER, even if occassionally!

That fact alone appears to be very hard to near impossible to work around architecturally and still create the desired effect just mentioned. Or looked at in another way it appears that ALL architecture CANNOT have ALL things ALL the time!

However, there's still one single fact or application that could in theory attempt to accomplish all these things. That would be some very sophisticated applications of TEMPTATION to the long driver that might be in fact far more dangerous (in a risk/reward context) than most long hitters would ever come to know, recognize or admit.

If a golf hole can somehow tempt more players into trying something (using the driver for excessive length for instance) and making more mistakes than they see before them as likely, then I believe that golf hole has really accomplished something architecturally.

There're holes like that out there! They, for various reasons, tempt even good players into trying things and coming up on the wrong end more than other holes. These kinds of holes are the ones we once looked at as creating the greatest scoring spectrum over time!

And, by the way, I'm not talking about a high scoring average for a golf hole--I'm talking about a wide scoring spectrum!!

[TEPaul]

I think at this point I'll even name this scoring spectrum theory. I'll call it the "Paul/Crosby Scoring Spectrum" theory (as a barometer to analze architectural quality and interest).

Or the "PC Scoring Spectrum" theory!

One can see that by the time I'm finally finished on here on Golfclubatlas.com I want my own little dictionary of golf terms, ie;

The "PC Scoring Spectrum" theory
The "Maintenance Meld"
The "Steve Curry Greenspeed Barometer"
"Turboe boost areas"
"Anti-turboe boost areas"
The "puffy and upholstered look"
"Poofs"
the "golf walk method" (routing method)

And the latest one I'm working on for more creative architecture in the mold of some of the best of the "Golden Agers" (ex. A.W. Tillie) which I'm terming;

"Flask architecture"

or even (particularly after I see Eastward Ho! by Herbert Fowler;

"Horse or Pony architecture"

Shortly I'll be attempting to get together with William Kittleman for more inspiration and collaboration, ie;

"grunkel"
The "abruptment"
The "calderra"

etc, etc, etc...

[Mark_Fine]

I guess one question worth asking, is what did we expect to happen to golf course architecture?  Flynn suggested 80 years ago that courses would eventually need to be 8000 yards long to challenge the best players.  Why are the 7500 yard courses we are starting to see a shock to us??

If you are concerned about length, why not just design courses in the spirit of Merion, The National, Pine Valley, .... and just make them a 1000 or so yards longer?  

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine asked;

"I guess one question worth asking, is what did we expect to happen to golf course architecture?  Flynn suggested 80 years ago that courses would eventually need to be 8000 yards long to challenge the best players.  Why are the 7500 yard courses we are starting to see a shock to us??"

It should be pointed out that what Flynn was saying was not just an expectation, it was meant very much to be a warning. He definitely said that something MUST be done about that 'little pill'. He made that 8,000 yard remark in 1927 obviously expecting the regulatory bodies to listen or at least hoping they would. He outlined as well some of the negative things that would happen if nothing was done with the ball, lack of available elasticity, cost of land, cost of golf etc, all the things that have happened in the ensuing decades.

[DMoriarty]

#5 is a very good hole for most golfers but not for the big hitters.  Most would tee off with an iron as you run out of room quickly on the left.  It's a forced layup off the tee for them, but still a two-shot hole!

Mark,

Mostly I was just using 5 as an example of a hole type where more width doesnt advantage the long hitter.  So in theory if you dont think it is long enough you can just pretend it is longer.  I think the strategy still remains intact.

That being said, a couple of things about 5.  

First, I think part of the charm of the hole is that the end of the fairway looks much closer than it is.  I will go do some field work today --  I'll  walk it off from the back tee to the end of the fairway on the left to see if it really is an iron to the left.

Second, I think the design actually called for another tee box set back quite a ways from the existing back box.  Might have solved your iron off the tee problem, if one exists.

[Mark_Fine]

You are right about #5 from a conceptual standpoint.  But that hole is definitely an iron, for some maybe a 3I at most when it is playing firm and fast for the long hitters.  The fairway may go out 300 yards to the one corner, but you would never aim to get it all the way our there, as there is no need or advantage in doing so.   The risk doesn't justify the reward.  

Watch the pros on TV today at the Houston Open.  They'll be hitting 3W/4I into some of the 570 yard "three-shot" holes!
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Chris B,

The problem is, the higher handicap, if they miss their drive or second shot, will be faced with being in the same general area as the LONG driver and facing the same shot.

But, perhaps that's not an unreasonable penalty for a mis-hit shot.

Mark Fine,

Pine Tree, which is a little over 7200 yards had 56 golfers at
a 4 handicap or lower, 20 at 2 or lower and 10 at 0 or lower.
Without wind, most of the Players have little trouble with its length, including old guys.

On the practice tee today, guys were experimenting with all kinds of drivers, Cobra, Nike ?, Taylor, and balls, and hitting them distances previously unheard of, and these were amateurs, including some old guys.

The fellow I played with the other day, typically carries it about 300 or more yards.

Another fellow who I was with today, who is a member of Oakmont, was saying that some members are renaming it Jokemont due to the addition of substantial length in preparation for the OPEN.

A member of Shinnecock indicated that they added about 350 yards to the golf course in preparation for the next open.

Those courses evidently had the room to do so, but, what if you don't have the room ?

How can you defend against the LONG ball with architecture ?

DMoriarty,

In your example you indicated 200 to the green with a difficult angle.

These guys (amateurs) are hitting high 6 irons 200 yards with no problem, so the angles have taken on diminished importance in light of the distance and trajectory that they hit the ball.

Guys driving the ball 300+ on the carry aren't hitting their 7-irons 150 yards like in the old days.

[TEPaul]

Considering design and architecture for supposed club members who "carry" the ball 300 yds and hit 6 irons to 500 yd par 5s regularly is madness. I frankly don't believe that one iota and if that's something they truly are doing those members probably belong on tour because those types of numbers are in league with the Tiger Woods of this world. Normal golf courses do not need to be concerned with such things. Championship courses which will be pro tour venues and Open venues are a different issue. Sometimes the discussion on this site gets into real some real "fish" stories. Long drives and long drivers are around but even those that are being mentioned now and again have to total it up at the end of the day and frankly that's the data and stat we should be looking at more closely. If there's some dramatic change there then it's worth more discussion but I doubt that's a huge concern right now.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Years ago, you wouldn't even imagine that one individual could do this.

You couldn't even imagine that a PGA Tour player could do it.
 
But, the truth is, College kids are hitting it further than tour players, and high school kids are right up there with them.

The next generation of golfer is incredibly long.

Buzz Peel, who is no youngster, and is just one of a number of solid players at Pine Tree, routinely hits 300+ yard drives. His tee shots are like howitzers.

Remember, we're old, and our contemporaries that we play with are old.  These young kids routinely hit it so far that you can't believe it.  If you get a chance, go to an NCAA golf tournament, and then tell me what you think.

When's the last time you thought a THIRTEEN (13) year old girl could keep up with seasoned LPGA Tour pros ?

Like it or not, this is the new wave of golfers.

I see a partial solution.

Bring back the STYMIE.

[texsport]

You are absolutely correct in that elite PGA pros require different courses than the rest of us. There's a lot of data around proving that the new equipment hasn't changed the distance Joe Average hits the ball because he can't swing faster than the 107 MPH the USGA uses to test  and regulate ball performance with.

Because those regulations are obsolete for PGA Tour players in another matter.

Today I watch Hank Kuene hit balls on the range with 300+ yard carries and 8 second hang times. Tiger isn't real close to this guy. ( Just count out 8 seconds and emagine how high and far Kuene hits it.) The Titleist ProV1x ball is designed to beat the rules and does so effectively, but only for the 150-200 absolutely best players in the world.That's the most exclusive group of the major sports and draws players from all over the world.

Consider, there are about 640 players in the NFL and 750 in Major League baseball. Ruth, Bonds and McGwire dominated bseball and made a joke of the home run. We should expect golf to have a few players who stretch reality also.

The rest of us are not threatening golf course design with eye popping length. Consistency is a better goal for us than try to emulate or worry about Babe Woods or Hank McGwire.

Texsport

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said:

"Buzz Peel, who is no youngster, and is just one of a number of solid players at Pine Tree, routinely hits 300+ yard drives. His tee shots are like howitzers."

Pat:

So what? Email me his GHIN number--I want to see if it makes any difference at all. If he isn't shooting some decent scores, I repeat--so what if he's hitting 350+ yard drives and his tee shots are like cruise missiles?

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,

In your example you indicated 200 to the green with a difficult angle.

These guys (amateurs) are hitting high 6 irons 200 yards with no problem, so the angles have taken on diminished importance in light of the distance and trajectory that they hit the ball.

Guys driving the ball 300+ on the carry aren't hitting their 7-irons 150 yards like in the old days.

Patrick, to get to 200 yds out these guys have to hit their drives around 330 (I walked it today) into a acute corner of the fairway.  If they then can stick a six iron into the narrow of the green (with the prevailing wind at their back) they might still not win the hole, but they have earned their eagle putt in my book.  (This will be more true if the back tee ever gets built.)

If we are always going to assume that these guys are supermen who can do anything from anywhere, then your correct.  But they arent from what Ive seen on tv.

[Jim Thompson]

Pat,

IMHO the Achilles heal of architecture has little to do with the distance various skill levels can hit; rather it is a by-product of the "common landing area".

When we look at centerline drawings of many routings we see the play line from the tips with the respective pivots and / or landing areas.  They notion that all level of players are to share the same relative landing area is a trap that has only recently been exasperated by the relative variance in distance by different tee level players.  I think in the "old days" a the front and rear of the landing area were, at most, maybe three clubs difference for players of different skill levels.  Consequently, design flaws were less obvious. Today the 200 marker is a six for the hitter and a solid five wood for the higher handicapper or a difficult 3 iron.

So, what do we need to do today?  I think a strong consideration for “the hourglass” fairway will be on the horizon.  The landing area at 310 from the tips will be 30 yards wide while 50 yards wide 250 yards from the middle tees – both leaving relatively the same club for the next shot.  It will be driven by a need to create holes, which play Driver / 7 Iron from ALL tees, rather than say Driver 180 yards.  Club equity has been the victim of a resistance to move tees.  I feel awful when I play a friendly with “distinguished and experienced gentlemen” and we find ourselves the same distance from the hole after tee shots that were great for both of us.  However, I am hitting a wedge and they are hitting 6 irons.  Should they be moving forward a set of tees so that they land past my landing area and have wedges or should I have to miss out on the opportunity to play the true game of golf because I hit the ball to far and my club has “run out of land” taking their money all the while?  In addition, if the goal is for all of us, skill level of players, to “play the same game” the distance between the various tee boxes will need to become increasingly dramatic as will the need for fourth and fifth tee boxes.

The $64k question becomes does the non-scratch player consider golf to be the game he sees on Sunday afternoon or the game played by his forefathers?  And, subsequently, which does he / she want to play?  Do we really want to shorten the middle tees on old classic courses in pursuit of the “Sunday TV” game(I refuse to call it golf)?  Do we have to, or even want to, wait until our skills diminish enough that technology can’t help us avoid playing traditional golf?  If they had to use wooden woods, tour ball etc… on the tour would you play them to “be like Mike” or would you still hit the Ti monster?  Would you hit the tour ball but move up a set of tees to play the game you’ve played the last eight years or stay at the tips and take it on the chin?  Which course should architects design - the resort course for the ignorant masses or the modern classic? Do we all just suffer from performance anxiety and distance envy and feel a need to punish "them tour guys" because they're just that much better then we'll ever be?  Maybe we should all move up a set or two of tees and see how boring it is for them to play our courses?

Cheers!

JT

[Mark_Fine]

Pete Dye designed a lot of his fairways in somewhat of a "V" formation.  The further you went back, the further you had to hit it to get to the wider part of the fairway.  Just think how far they'll have to move those tees back to test the big boys.  That design plays right into their hands.  

[ForkaB]

Shivas

Well said.

I'm not quite sure where Dave M. got this concept that the purpose of golf was to somehow penalize the more talented player by allowing his less strong and/or co-ordinated opponents to allow luck to trump skill, but I suspect it has something to do with the concepts of jurisprudence rather than games/sport.  If he were arguing on the other side of the case, of course, he could say that mega "punchbowl" greens which allowed any shot hit long enough within a 40 yard radius to gather down to the hole were the bees knees in "strategic" design.

Not.

[Mike_Cirba]

I thought this past week's tournament was illustrative.

You had a 7,500 yard course (at sea level), which still ended up with a winner at -20.

The tournament clearly points out that making courses longer does nothing to protect against long drives.  In fact, it just eliminates the rest of the field.

How many other tournaments have you seen where both John Daly and Hank Kuene were in serious contention?  

Interestingly, two of the most experienced bombers, Couples and Calcavecchia, were able to combine their length with greater course management the the younger bombers, and walked away with the top spots.

Once we get courses up to about 7,800 yards, it seems that Daly and Kuene might finally win in what would be a war of attrition.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

He's a plus 4 handicap.

He wasn't a plus 4 handicap three years ago.

Jim Thompson,

You've made some very good points to ponder.

Shivas,

I agree with you, most of the long hitters I know are good players who exercise good course management skills.
I think it's just the reverse.  Short hitters may have to tack, but that doesn't make them smarter.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas and Rich

Let me get this straight.  You want the 310 yard hitter to have the advantage of a wider landing area and a better angle to the green, in addition to the six (6!) club distance advantage his length has already given him?  Talk about stacking the deck!  

Distance is its own reward.  Pardon me for suggesting that even the big hitter should have to make the occasional strategic decision of whether or not it is prudent to try to cash in this reward on a particular hole.  

The landing area of the hole in question is, I'm guessing, something like 60-70 yds wide-- probably 40-50 yds wide at 300 yds from the tee!  Is it really unfair to ask the big hitter to at least choose a side?

Rich, who says Shivas' longer player is the better player?  He certainly isnt the more accurate player.  And sure he might be smart.  But what is wrong with offering him the chance to be aggressive and take a chance if he wants to.  If he is so smart he will know when to be aggressive and when to not.  

Shivas, yep 5-5-wedge is an option, but would you take the option?   You guys tell me how these guys are so good and so long that they can stick anything from anywhere.  Well here is the chance.  Stick the drive at 320, then stick that 5-6 iron, and you will win the hole many more time than not.   Or lay back at 290-300 and stick the 3-4 iron.

Shivas you are also always talking about the great aeriel game of big hitters.  There is a shorter approach to this hole where the aerial game is a necessity and a longer route where it is not.  Having to hit over a steep bank and stop it before a bunker should be child's play to these guys.  

[ForkaB]

Dave

Do you really think that inferior tennis players should have the "strategic" option of forcing their opponent to serve underhand?  Should Shaq be allowed to shoot free throws from 2 feet away just because he hasn't a hope in hell of making one from the current line?  Should a medicore bowler like me be allowed to use the kiddie barriers that would let me make that 9 pin spare?

The is Equal Opportunity gone amok!

[DMoriarty]

Do you really think that inferior tennis players should have the "strategic" option of forcing their opponent to serve underhand?

 
Nope.  But then I could care less about tennis.  I found the game more interesting when they actually hit the ball back and forth a little, but nowadays it is mostly boredom amplified.  Hail to the big hitter!  May they long rule their deserted kingdom!

Should Shaq be allowed to shoot free throws from 2 feet away just because he hasn't a hope in hell of making one from the current line?

Nope.  But opponents should be allowed to hack him every time he gets near the ball-- in order to exploit his weaknesses and put him in a position where he isn't all that comfortable.  If I coached in the NBA, Shaq would shoot many more freethrows.  

Should a mediocre bowler like me be allowed to use the kiddie barriers that would let me make that 9 pin spare?

Bowling?  People still bowl?  Yes, if they deflected balls back on the alley then ended a few yards short of the pins.  They would be a non-entity to the good bowlers (assuming the bumpers allowed the use of the whole alley) and they would make the game much more fun for you and the other kiddies.  

How is occasionally requiring the long hitter to hit it straight "Equal Opportunity run amuck?" I find it telling that some think the hole is too easy for the big hitter and some think it too hard.  Which is it?  

Keep in mind that the tee shot is supposed to play substantially longer, so the big hitter can probably hit it 360 and still not be through the fairway on the left.

[DMoriarty]

Rich and Shivas.  

Based on your posts above, you must also both find 16 at Cypress to be an inferior hole,  with its shorter but more difficult route for the longer hitter willing to take a chance, and a longer but easier route for the golfer who lacks length or wants to play safe.  What was MacKenzie thinking?

[John_Conley]

D:

Are you and I now on the same side of something compared to Shiv and Goodale?  I haven't been participating in this thread and have only skimmed it, but it seems like you are taking a designer's view about trouble and where to place it.

Length is not everything.

[DMoriarty]

John,

One of my favorite tactics to avoid getting beat up as a kid:   When some bigger kid was getting mad at me (often the case with my mouth and lack of better judgment) I'd draw a line in the dirt and say, "if you want to fight step over this line." When they did so, I'd say, "we can't fight, were on the same side."  Usually worked to diffuse the situation, but not always.  

While we have been "discussing," I think we've been on the same side about most (but not all) aspects of the length issue.  Just a few disagreements over word choices.  

[ForkaB]

Dave

When I win the lottery and buy the Celtics I'm going to sign you on and give you the responsibility of fouling Shaq every time the Lakers (or whomever the hell is is playing with these days) come to town.  Try your "cross this line" trick with him a few times and I'll gladly pay all your hospital bills.

Rich

PS--I thought Dr. MacK's big idea for 16 was another short par 4.  Didn't Marion somethingorother design the hole that was actually built?

PPS--hope I get to play RC some day to see what the fuss is all about.

[Tags:]

Tags: