The psychology of the Driver....

[Mike_Young]

I was reading a thread by VK Metz where TD is talking about lengthening some par fours makes them easier for the elite player etc...
I don't think there has ever been a thread where we talked about the psychology of the driver.  Most good short holes are good because the architect knows the golfer wants to hit driver.  Is there anything wrong with a 490 yard par four where driver is a choice and not a demand?  As TD states many holes become better when made shorter and so often that is due to the the golfer having to hit driver.  Will one of Merion's best defenses be the "itch" to hit driver?  Is there any great golf course where the golfer is not made to think if he should hit driver on at least four par fours ( and maybe one par five)?  IMHO overcoming the instinct to hit the ball as far as one can hit it has as much to do with becoming a good player as putting...

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

This is a great topic because you know as well as I do the DEMAND from good players to "allow them to hit the driver" on any long hole and press their advantage with the club. 

The question is, just how much can you make the driver a foolish play without "taking the club out of their hands"?

I've always felt like the four short 4's at Crystal Downs were holes that brought the long hitters back to the pack, because it was so stupid to hit driver on any of them.  However, those holes play so short now that I'm starting to fear that their role will be altered.  I'm ok with people trying to drive #17 ... I've seen exactly one birdie and a whole lot of X's made that way ... but if it gets to the point where good players are having a go at #7 routinely, it might be time to look at lengthening those holes (slightly) to give them pause.

Another good way to go about it is to make a couple of par-4's where the long hitter's drive will result in a downhill lie, making him think about laying up to a flatter spot.  This is lost on many players, though.  I will never forget that when I lost my influence at High Pointe, the owner's son put in two tees further back on #5 and #7, the two holes where I'd made it to the long hitter's advantage to hit 3-wood off the tee. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

Could you provide those examples for PGA Tour players and separately for good to mediocre amateurs.

Thanks

P.S.  shouldn't there be an inherent architectural reward for successfully using driver off the tee, irrespective of the risk in doing so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Does # 10 at Shinnecock meet your down hill lie situation off the tee ?

[Mike_Young]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

Could you provide those examples for PGA Tour players and separately for good to mediocre amateurs.

Thanks

P.S.  shouldn't there be an inherent architectural reward for successfully using driver off the tee, irrespective of the risk in doing so.

Pat,
Give me a day or two and will give you a list of holes IMHO.  Immediately the last one that stood out to me on TV was a short drivable hole at the John Deere classic.  If you drove it pin high you needed to be left of green or on green.  If anywhere else there was zero chance of getting it close...and then was there #16 (I think) at Olympic?  I would love to see the pros be tempted with driver on #7 at Merion.
But as you say there should definitely be a reward for successfully using driver but respective of the risk not irrespective IMHO.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,

I just got done playing one today - Desert Forest.  You surely want to hit a lot of drivers, but keeping it in play is paramount.  Lots of par 4s that are fairly long.  The more interesting part of the equation is the greens out there - they are awesome and well contoured.  Less club coming in the better (obviously), but I ended up opting for hitting fairways and having more club in depending how the hole fit my eye.

[Ben Sims]

I did a test today on this thread.  Today was breezing along at 20-25mph.  I played the same 9's, one with driver on all par 4's and 5's, and one with nothing longer than a 4 iron.  I shot 42-41.  Putts were near equal.  

The scoring differences were pretty clear.  Lower average relative to par on par 4's, higher on par 5's.  I know it's one day, one test, and there are all kinds of variable for each golfer.  But I came away with a few thoughts.  I think shorter par 4's are scarier with the driver in hand.  Though the length is certainly nice to have, it's much easier to get offline with a driver.  One of the other thoughts I had was that par 5's became very strategically boring when a 200yd shot was all I could get off the tee.  

I think this is a very good topic Mike.  One of Tom's young guys, Zach Varty, and myself have had some good dialogue about the driver.  I wrote this in one of our emails....the continuous and precisely directed messages that golf companies and the greater golf world feed the larger golfing public are negatively affecting golfers’ views of great architecture with regard to the driver.  That's why I think it should be an architects goal to never overtly take a club out of any players hand due to shrunken landing zone, impossible carries, and prematurely ending fairways/early doglegs. I would add here, holes that take driver away from the vast majority of players is generally not well received from my experience.  
 

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
I'm not saying to take the driver out of one's hand. 
Take this example: a fairway 80 yards wide with no bunkers and a green with a bunker running it's length on each side .  Let's say the green slopes right to left .  For the golfer who can hit the driver 265 the hole is a much easier hole at 320 yards than if the hole were shortened to 265 yards.  You have to keep the pin in front of you....if you get pin high to either side you have a much more difficult shot than in front...IMHO

[Dan_Callahan]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

The 4th hole at TPC Boston was shortened significantly and went from being a crap hole to the best hole on the course.

[John Kirk]

Ben,
I'm not saying to take the driver out of one's hand. 
Take this example: a fairway 80 yards wide with no bunkers and a green with a bunker running it's length on each side .  Let's say the green slopes right to left .  For the golfer who can hit the driver 265 the hole is a much easier hole at 320 yards than if the hole were shortened to 265 yards.  You have to keep the pin in front of you....if you get pin high to either side you have a much more difficult shot than in front...IMHO

The difficulty of a golf hole is highly correlated to its length.  I doubt a 265 yard hole of this nature would actually yield a higher scoring average for players who hit the ball 265 with the driver.  It may seem more difficult, but 55 yards shorter is significant.

I would rather have most greenside bunker shots than a 55 yard pitch.  At 320 yards (if I hit it 265), I would likely lay back with fairway wood, so I can hit a full sand wedge approach.

I suppose if the hole is 265, and the green is either shallow or very narrow, I would lay back with iron so I had 80 yards left.

[Mike_Young]

John,
I may have over simplified the example and it may be that you and others would lay back but many would not.  And as you state, yes, I would rather have the bunker shot.  BUT I was thinking of 265 length drives that were well left or right of the green not in the bunker.  If they are good enough to hit in the bunker then yes that is a play...IMHO

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

The 4th hole at TPC Boston was shortened significantly and went from being a crap hole to the best hole on the course.

That's one.
Where are the other four ?

[Tom_Doak]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

Patrick:

I'll try to give a couple of examples using two courses you know well -- Garden City and The National.

Garden City is a tough one because of all those cross bunkers at the 300-yard mark, that would restrict drives if the tees were shortened.  However, a hole like the 9th might be tougher if it were just a bit shorter, so that long hitters were tempted to carry the big sandy waste in front of the green, instead of laying up to it.  The 11th might be better if it was shorter, forcing more players to take a line up the right side.  The 13th might be better if it was shorter, so that people had to drive past the bunker and up the slope.  And the 14th might be better if it was shorter, and some guys thought about going toward the green, over all that nasty stuff on the right of the dogleg.

At National, the 7th would be a better hole for many if it were a bit shorter and the green was in range of two shots for them; then they'd really want to take on the bunkers on the right, instead of playing safely left because they know they're not getting home anyway.  The 5th might also be interesting if it was shorter, and you had to consider where to drive in relation to that long narrow bunker that's past most people's landing area now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

Patrick:

I'll try to give a couple of examples using two courses you know well -- Garden City and The National.

Tom,

I think one of Garden City's assets, in terms of defense, are the cross bunkers that thwart or throttle down the long hitter.
If the holes that have cross bunkering were shorter, today's bombers might fly those hazards with impunity..

Garden City is a tough one because of all those cross bunkers at the 300-yard mark, that would restrict drives if the tees were shortened.  However, a hole like the 9th might be tougher if it were just a bit shorter, so that long hitters were tempted to carry the big sandy waste in front of the green, instead of laying up to it. 

With the prevailing wind at your back, many of the long hitters are already challenging that fronting cross bunker.
I wouldn't mind being in it and having a bunker shot as my approach.
When you lay back, and the hole is cut up front, with the greens fast and firm and the prevailing wind at your back, it's almost impossible to get close to the hole.  Shortening the hole might make it easier.

The 11th might be better if it was shorter, forcing more players to take a line up the right side.  The 13th might be better if it was shorter, so that people had to drive past the bunker and up the slope.  And the 14th might be better if it was shorter, and some guys thought about going toward the green, over all that nasty stuff on the right of the dogleg.

On 11 I get the opposite feel.
Those wonderful step bunkers are almost obsolete.
With no wind or a slight wind at your back, they're easily carried.
If anything, 20 to 40 more yards would reestablish those bunkers as hazards to be feared and avoided, not challenged.

13 is interesting.
A shorter hole would tempt the big hitter, but today's golfer could hit 3-wood short and get home in two.

At National, the 7th would be a better hole for many if it were a bit shorter and the green was in range of two shots for them; then they'd really want to take on the bunkers on the right, instead of playing safely left because they know they're not getting home anyway. 


I don't know how to tell you this, but guys are already hitting mid irons to shorter irons into that green.
And I'm talking about amateurs in the Singles Tournament.
I still get home in two on occasion.

The "Hotel" bunker complex has become obsolete, that's why I suggested that the mow the footpad to the left of the 12th green to tee height, for use on both # 7 and # 13.  Fortunately others agreed with me and # 7 has been lengthened, but not enough to make the "Hotel" bunker complex come back into play for everyone.  The neat thing about the "Hotel" bunker complex being in play is that it shifts the DZ further left for the golfer tring to avoid it, over into the bowl, which makes the second shot blind.


The 5th might also be interesting if it was shorter, and you had to consider where to drive in relation to that long narrow bunker that's past most people's landing area now.

Guys are already laying up short of that diagonal bunker and they made the hole a par 4 for the Singles.
I think it's a par 4 for everyone today.

Look, I'm with you on reigning in distance, but it's so hard to do architecturally on existing courses.

While the USGA seems focused on Belly and Long putters today, they seem to have their head in the sand on the ball and distance, and while I had hoped that ANGC would develop or sponsor a tournament ball for the Masters, that could be adopted by the USGA, I'm less hopeful today than I was a few years ago.
I mean, how much adjacent real estate can ANGC buy in order to lengthen the course ?

I think you and other architects have an advantage in designing new holes to meet and thwart the distance demon.
I think new holes give you more freedom, more latitude in expressing your architectural concepts in the form of features that challenge the long ball.

But, I don't think it's an easy task as you still have to cater to the broader spectrum of golfers at the same time.
I think it's harder and harder to design a "one course fits all " playing field.

I was thinking about your concept of shortening holes in the context of # 1 at NGLA.
But, the problem I have with your concept is that the longer hitter can dial it down.
They can hit a fairway wood, rescue club or iron to put them in ideal position.

Would you believe that guys are driving # 17 green at NGLA ?

That guys are driving it OVER the road on # 11, leaving them wedges into that green.

I don't know how you combat that without unduly harming the lesser player.

The ultimate solution rests with those in Far Hills.

I'd just like to see the folks in Augusta lead the way ASAP

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - I think this a very interesting question, for me because it seems like this century's version of a question architects and writers about architecture were asking at this same time LAST century. Who are the rabbits nowadays, and who are the tigers? What provides the rabbits the most fun/satisfaction while also giving them a real chance to compete (at least, with handicaps) against the tigers? At what skill-level/rabbit-ness does it become necessary or desirable to take the driver out of their hands/paws? How does doing that for the rabbits (via the architecture) impact or affect the tigers, who are playing the same architecture?

Sure, nowadays, unlike a hundred years ago, we just tend to slap in a third or fourth or fifth tee-box and pretend that all those questions are answered, and that the underlying philosophy/ideal is being addressed.  But it's not really. We've just taken the easy way out. (Maybe that's why the golf/architecture writing of today pales in comparison to that of a century ago, when folks grappled deeply with fundamental questions about the nature of the game and it's fields of play)

Peter

[jeffwarne]

Mike and Tom,

Could you provide five (5) examples of holes that become better holes as they are shortened ?

Patrick:

I'll try to give a couple of examples using two courses you know well -- Garden City and The National.


At National, the 7th would be a better hole for many if it were a bit shorter and the green was in range of two shots for them; then they'd really want to take on the bunkers on the right, instead of playing safely left because they know they're not getting home anyway. 


I don't know how to tell you this, but guys are already hitting mid irons to shorter irons into that green.
And I'm talking about amateurs in the Singles Tournament.
I still get home in two on occasion.

The "Hotel" bunker complex has become obsolete, that's why I suggested that the mow the footpad to the left of the 12th green to tee height, for use on both # 7 and # 13.  Fortunately others agreed with me and # 7 has been lengthened, but not enough to make the "Hotel" bunker complex come back into play for everyone.  The neat thing about the "Hotel" bunker complex being in play is that it shifts the DZ further left for the golfer tring to avoid it, over into the bowl, which makes the second shot blind.


The 5th might also be interesting if it was shorter, and you had to consider where to drive in relation to that long narrow bunker that's past most people's landing area now.

Guys are already laying up short of that diagonal bunker and they made the hole a par 4 for the Singles.
I think it's a par 4 for everyone today.

Look, I'm with you on reigning in distance, but it's so hard to do architecturally on existing courses.

While the USGA seems focused on Belly and Long putters today, they seem to have their head in the sand on the ball and distance, and while I had hoped that ANGC would develop or sponsor a tournament ball for the Masters, that could be adopted by the USGA, I'm less hopeful today than I was a few years ago.
I mean, how much adjacent real estate can ANGC buy in order to lengthen the course ?

I think you and other architects have an advantage in designing new holes to meet and thwart the distance demon.
I think new holes give you more freedom, more latitude in expressing your architectural concepts in the form of features that challenge the long ball.

But, I don't think it's an easy task as you still have to cater to the broader spectrum of golfers at the same time.
I think it's harder and harder to design a "one course fits all " playing field.

I was thinking about your concept of shortening holes in the context of # 1 at NGLA.
But, the problem I have with your concept is that the longer hitter can dial it down.
They can hit a fairway wood, rescue club or iron to put them in ideal position.

Would you believe that guys are driving # 17 green at NGLA ?

That guys are driving it OVER the road on # 11, leaving them wedges into that green.

I don't know how you combat that without unduly harming the lesser player.

The ultimate solution rests with those in Far Hills.

I'd just like to see the folks in Augusta lead the way ASAP

+1 Patrick