[Thomas Dai]

When you play with someone you pretty much know through experience and instinct how good the other player is. Sometimes you’ll play with a smart thinking great ball striking long hitter, sometimes with a long hitter with not much game and not much of a golfing brain either.  Sometimes you’ll play with a lousy short hitter and sometimes with a short hitter who has every shot in the book and a great golfing brain to go with it. 

But even if they tee it up in the same spot and putt out into the same cup are long hitters and short hitters really playing the same course?

As it's raining, I decided to review this by doing some purely academic golfing analysis instead of hitting the course - "reckon you should have played" I can hear some clever-clogs saying in the background!

Anyway, the basic assumptions that I've used are that both the long and the short hitters have exactly the same very high level of skill and golfing brain, that the long hitter hits it 315 yds off the tee and 105 yds with his 60* wedge with all the other clubs graded in between whilst the short hitter hits it 220 yds off the tee and 50 yds with his 60* with all the other clubs graded in between.

As it’s being used at present, I used the cumulative yardages for each hole at ANGC at per this years Masters as taken from their website (7,435 yds) but without resorting to overly complicated factoring like carries and up/down-slopes, firmness/softness, ponds, etc let alone GIR’s, up-n-downs and all that kinda clever stuff. I then worked out what clubs the 315 hitter would be using to get to each green - I assumed all greens would be hit in regulation - you have to really make this assumption or else the calculations start to become way, way too complicated.

I then calculated what the equivalent course yardage would be for the 220 yard hitter if he were to play the exact same clubs as the 315 hitter on every hole - the answer………..5,285 yds!

I then thought what yardage would the 315 hitter have to be playing to feel the same as the 220 hitter does on a 7,435 course - the answer……….9,656 yds. Anyone fancy playing, let alone walking, a 9,656 yd course?

If you have the time, try this academic analysis for your home course or the course you play most often.

Comments welcome, nice ones please, and BTW, I don't read coloured ink.

All the best.

[Jud_T]

Yup.  Play it forward.  Once you get over your macho fantasy of playing the full course you'll be shocked at 1)  How much more fun the game is 2)  How nice it is to actually have a chance of breaking 80  3) How much faster the game is  4) How much less expensive it could be if 98% of us played the proper tees and folks built golf courses solely for the specs and enjoyment of that 98%.

[JESII]

Anyway, the basic assumptions that I've used are that both the long and the short hitters have exactly the same very high level of skill and golfing brain, that the long hitter hits it 315 yds off the tee and 105 yds with his 60* wedge with all the other clubs graded in between whilst the short hitter hits it 220 yds off the tee and 50 yds with his 60* with all the other clubs graded in between.

Thomas,

When you say "exactly the same level of skill", are you referring to hadicap? Or some other measurement of skill?

Are we to assume that over time these two players attain equal scoring results?

[Thomas Dai]

Jud T,

We're singing from the same hymn book I reckon.

Jim,

Thanks for your query, my apologies if what I described above isn't as clear as it should have been.

When I say "exactly the same level of skill" I'm not referring to handicap, I'm referring to a rather different measure, perhaps a somewhat vague one, but one which through experience is probably best to describe as the 'quality of ball striking', a very difficult thing to precisely define I appreciate – see later.

I don't believe that two players, one a long hitter, one a short hitter, but both with exactly equal ball striking skills, ie the ability to time after time after time hit the ball very close to the sweet spot of the clubhead with a consistent swingplane, swingpath and clubhead speed etc, etc, etc, will ever achieve the same handicap because of what I shall term 'the effect of length'.

To give one very general example of this 'effect of length' difference to illustrate matters, on say a 550 yd par-5, the longer hitter can get on the green with 2 full shots and then 2 putt for a birdie 4 whereas the shorter hitter will need 3 full shots and then 2 putts for a par 5. So their scores will likely differ by 1 shot. I won't attempt to elaborate with infinite descriptions and statistics of shots and distances and up-n-down and putting percentages etc etc as I'm sure you get my drift.
 
Obviously in this sort of academic analysis you have to make some assumptions, such as both players striking the ball equally well and avoiding errors, pretty unlikely one could easily say, but without such assumptions analysis becomes difficult if not impossible.

I hope this further explanation is helpful.

All the best.

[Jason Thurman]

I don't get it. Isn't the ability to generate clubhead speed part of being a great ball striker?

There's a difference between playing the same shots and playing the same course. If two players tee it up in the same spot and hole out in the same spot, they're playing the same course. They're just not playing the same shots.

I'm all for teeing it forward like Jud suggests, but I don't think every short hitter with a consistent swing deserves to hit the same clubs into every hole as a long hitter. In the end, every player has strengths and weaknesses. We all just ultimately have to figure out how to get the ball into the hole with whatever tools we have.

[Brent Hutto]

I used to play with a guy at my club who was in his early 70's. If he ever missed the sweet spot on an iron by more than a millimeter it was a very rare event. His shots had "the sound" time after time after time. Always knew where his ball was going and how far.

But he only hit a 7-iron about 140 yards and his drives maybe 220-ish. Twenty years earlier I'd imagine he hit every shot just as flush but got 20-30 more yards on every shot.

His handicap was about 3-4 now versus scratch or better in his prime. I'm sure he thought that was a fair enough reckoning of how much less "skilled" he was at age 70 than at age 50. Not sure how you'd want a handicapping system that did NOT reflect 30 yards less distance as a higher handicap.

Keep in mind, the handicap system is to provide a fair game between players of dissimilar capabilities. As such it absolutely must incorporate distance potential into that reckoning. That said, whatever the handicap index I'd still rather play for money against a guy who catches it on the heel or toe pretty often...

[David_Tepper]

Thomas D. -

I am not sure I understand the point of your post. Bigger, faster, stronger athletes have an advantage in just about every sport.

One of the nice things about golf is that, if you are deficient in one facet of the game, you can make up for it elsewhere. This allowed Paul Runyan to compete with Sam Snead, Gary Player to compete with Jack Nicklaus, Corey Pavin to compete with Fred Couples and allows Luke Donald to compete with the bombers of today.   

If you can't hit it far, you better learn how to pitch, chip & putt.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

Don't play it forward.
Tell the pros to play it from 8500 where they belong.
Let's not screw up the game anymore than we have to.

[Thomas Dai]

I’m not sure that 8,500 yd courses as mentioned above are even long enough for the big boys of the pro tour game.

Given todays athletic bomber long hitters and their nutrition and exercise regimes plus ball and club fitting techniques I reckon more like 9,500-10,000 yds is probably closer to the mark. Which, as per the recent discussion thread on rollbacks etc, brings all sorts of other issues into the equation like land availability, water usage etc etc etc. As to the long hitter vrs short hitter conundrum, I suggest that lengthening courses actually tilts the disparity from the scoring point of view even more in favour of the power player.

How about a complete turn about?

Why not make courses much, much shorter? Play tight 6,000 yarders with dog-legged fairways, wickedly shaped and sloped greens, penal fairway hazards. You could fit an 18-holer at 6,000 yds plus a 3,000 yd 9-holer into a patch of land that could take one 10,000 yd course. Or at an existing 7,500 yd area, fit in a 6,000 yd 18-holer plus a par-3 academy course for kids to learn on and the infirm to play some fun golf plus have a Himalayas type putting green as well. Shorter should mean quicker rounds, less expensive golf plus other savings and should bring skill and artistry back into the higher levels of the game with a premium on accuracy, course management, shot placement and spin control.

Oh, and, while your at it, cut back on the maximum number of clubs players can use in competitions, pro tour comps as well, to say 8 or 9 clubs max.

Thinking outside the box never hurts.

All the best.

[Garland Bayley]

The reason I said 8500, is because I read a conversion using Venturi's length when he won at Congressional to the distances the modern players hit the ball. The conversion said 8500 would get the players hitting the same clubs. So the hacker playing from 6300 back then would still play approximately the same at 6300 now, but the tour players playing at near 7000 yards back then would need 8500 to duplicate the test.

[Garland Bayley]

...

Thinking outside the box never hurts.
...

It does when you start talking about tightening courses. That is actually in the USGA box thinking for a long time.

[Thomas Dai]

GJB,

My use of the 8,500 yds you mentioned was not meant as a criticism, more as illustrative.

Now that you've got Dustin Johnson fizzing it 357 yds over the trees on the corner of the 13th at ANGC I reckon the figure is probably more like 10,000 yds for the modern day super-fit athletic gym-junky giant size player who eats the most appropriate food, drinks the most appropriate fluid, travels in a way that is less tiring, is generally pampered and uses a technology backed custom fit ball and clubs.

All the best.

[Jason Thurman]

Now that you've got Dustin Johnson fizzing it 357 yds over the trees on the corner of the 13th at ANGC I reckon the figure is probably more like 10,000 yds for the modern day super-fit athletic gym-junky giant size player who eats the most appropriate food, drinks the most appropriate fluid, travels in a way that is less tiring, is generally pampered and uses a technology backed custom fit ball and clubs.

So he works his ass off and lives a lifestyle based around exceling at his profession but he's "generally pampered"? How do you rationalize those two points of view?

Dustin Johnson is a freak athlete, not much different than Lebron James or Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps in the way that he's built perfectly for the sport he plays. He also trains ferociously. Why you want to penalize him for that by making him play a course that results in him hitting the same clubs you hit is beyond me.

[Jud_T]

Now that you've got Dustin Johnson fizzing it 357 yds over the trees on the corner of the 13th at ANGC I reckon the figure is probably more like 10,000 yds for the modern day super-fit athletic gym-junky giant size player who eats the most appropriate food, drinks the most appropriate fluid, travels in a way that is less tiring, is generally pampered and uses a technology backed custom fit ball and clubs.

So he works his ass off and lives a lifestyle based around exceling at his profession but he's "generally pampered"? How do you rationalize those two points of view?

Dustin Johnson is a freak athlete, not much different than Lebron James or Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps in the way that he's built perfectly for the sport he plays. He also trains ferociously. Why you want to penalize him for that by making him play a course that results in him hitting the same clubs you hit is beyond me.

Jason,

The difference is that when Lebron comes along and can elevate 6" higher above the rim, he faces the next generation of player, the best of whom can elevate 6" higher to defend him.  In golf, either we lengthen the courses ad infinitum, and suffer all the attendant knock-on effects that come with that, or we essentially alter the very nature of the game.  We might as well just get the top 10 ReMax Long Drive guys and get 'em to work on their chipping and putting a bit.  Either that or make golf a contact sport.

[Jason Thurman]

Jud, professionals at every level play a different game from the rest of us. The pickup games I play at my local gym are nothing like an NBA game. Hell, Division 1 college games are nothing like an NBA game. The athleticism and physicality combined with the modern game's focus on statistical efficiency creates a "game with which I am unfamiliar."

There's no reason to lengthen courses ad infinitum if we just accept that the world's best play a game with which we are unfamiliar. The same ego that tells handicap golfers that they deserve a chance to reach every hole in regulation is the ego that says we need to make the big boys play from 7800 or 8100 or 8500 yards. If we all just got over the fact that we don't hit it as far as Dustin Johnson and he consequently gets to hit shorter clubs than us, then we'd have no reason to build courses longer than 7200 yards. We could just accept that he's going to hit short irons and move on to the part where we marvel at his dedication to fitness, strength, flexibility, and the power that results.

We talk a lot about "giving these guys a thorough test," but that's a load of crap. A 470 yard par 4 is a thorough test, and if you can attack it with a 350 yard drive followed by a wedge then you've accomplished something with just as high a degree of difficulty as hitting a 270 yard drive followed by a 5 iron. What we really want is to feel better about ourselves when we have to pull a long iron every now and then. Sorry, but you and I just aren't as good as the pros. They're always going to crush it and shoot low scores. Who gives a crap if they don't have to hit a 3 iron to do it? It's much harder to do what Dustin Johnson does than it is to hit a solid long iron shot, especially in 2013 when long irons are really just high MOI cannons with gigantic sweet spots.

[Josh Tarble]

I think this is a difficult subject for me to really come up with a compelling argument for either side.

On one hand, I do think the pro game is a little ridiculous and it's hard to see courses become obsolete to those <1% of all golfers.  They really do just over power most courses.

On the other hand, I don't think the game has ever been more fun for a large portion of golfers.  I know new equipment has drastically improved my game, the way I am able to attack architectural features and generally enjoy the game.  

[Garland Bayley]

GJB,

My use of the 8,500 yds you mentioned was not meant as a criticism, more as illustrative.

Now that you've got Dustin Johnson fizzing it 357 yds over the trees on the corner of the 13th at ANGC I reckon the figure is probably more like 10,000 yds for the modern day super-fit athletic gym-junky giant size player who eats the most appropriate food, drinks the most appropriate fluid, travels in a way that is less tiring, is generally pampered and uses a technology backed custom fit ball and clubs.

All the best.

I reckon you're wrong, because it was possible to hit that shot 40 years ago.

[Thomas Dai]

GJB,

Perhaps the trees weren't as high 40 years ago!

Also, didn't they extend the tee a while back? Plus, even if someone did hit it over the trees 40 years ago, and Sam Sneed I think was supposed to have done so with lower level trees before WWII, would they have been hitting an 8-iron for their second shot, which is what I believe DJ hit to the green?

Jason,

I'm just using DJ for illustrative purposes, no personal criticism of him or his work ethic etc is intended, in fact I wish him all the best. As to 'generally pampered', this is not meant as a personal criticism of DJ either, whose personal arrangements I'm not aware of, but generally speaking when someone else unloads your baggage from a private jet into a chauffer driving courtesy car which then speeds away to a rented house with a personal chef, well that not's exactly how most of us arrive at a competition is it?

Now, to return to the long hitters vrs short hitters debate, if a par-5 were to be a legitimate three shot par-5 for the likes of DJ then it would have to be I reckon about 817 yds long. How comes 817 yards? Well, 357 driver, 310 yd (say) fairway metal plus a 150 yd (say) wedge and then 2 putts. Yip, 817 yards.

Personally, I don't want to lengthen courses. In fact I reckon lengthening them over time has played into the hands of the longer hitter.

Me, I'd like to see what would happen if tournament courses were actually shortened, maybe down to even not much more than 6,000 yds so factors such as pinpoint accuracy, shot placement, spin control etc become rather more important. Let's see how skillful the players are rather than how powerful they are. Without using narrowed fairways or long rough or excess trees, I'd like to see the use of courses with clever dog-legs and slopes, dead ground, uneven lies, visual impediments, penal hazards, slick very firm greens with multiple contouring where you needed to finesse shots into slopes in order to let the ball flow or spin towards tight pins.

Actually, I'm telling a big fat pork pie, what I'd really like to see is a premium pro-tour tournament held at Askernish with all the players having to carry their own bags and play with a maximum of only 7 clubs which must comprise persimmon heads, steel shafts and blades with a balata ball and no more loft than 56* and no yardage books. Thinking again, maybe the first round could be played with these clubs, and then the 2nd round played with hickory and Yee Olde generation balls. After a cut, round three could be played with persimmon and blades and balata again and then for round four the hickories and Yee Olde balls could be used once more. They'd be a fifth round too, played with modern equipment and balls and caddies and yardage books. Now, if only I had enough £$£$£$ I might even pay for the whole damn thing myself including paying for all GCA'ers to come over and watch! If only.

All the best

[Jud_T]

Thomas,

DJ's second shot on the par 5 was a 9 iron!

[David_Tepper]

"that not's exactly how most of us arrive at a competition is it?"

Thomas D. -

That may not be the way most of us (guys like you & me) arrive at our competitions, but that is the way many, if not most, of the top players in the world arrive at their competitions. One level of competition has little or nothing to do with the other.

Good luck with your fantasies. May you live long enough to see some of them realized.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

GJB,

Perhaps the trees weren't as high 40 years ago!

Also, didn't they extend the tee a while back? Plus, even if someone did hit it over the trees 40 years ago, and Sam Sneed I think was supposed to have done so with lower level trees before WWII, would they have been hitting an 8-iron for their second shot, which is what I believe DJ hit to the green?

Notice I said it was possible. I didn't say anyone was trying to do it. It was a much much riskier shot back then. As to the 9 iron approach, Yes, if things had been mowed as short and fast back then to let the ball run out as far.

...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()