[Matt Kardash]

When the TPC first opened it was without a doubt a torture test for the pros. I have been saddened to see that year after year the torture aspect of the course has been smoothed away. They keep trying to bill the course as some sort of brutal test of golf, but is it really anymore?

In my estimation that golf course would benefit (for PGA tour purposes) in adding a few hundred yards. I know that everyone on this board hates the notion of lengthening a course but the fact of the matter is the course has been lengthened only about 300 yards in 30+ years. A PGA pro can go around hitting 3 woods and short irons into almost all the par 4s. The 9th used to be an unreachable par 5, now everyone in the field can get there, often with an iron or hybrid.

The scruffy Pine Valley-esque nature of the course has been completely removed. In the past, if you hit it offline you would potentially get an awkward lie. Now the course looks basically like Augusta in Florida.

The PGA Tour chooses to soften the greens every decade or so. The original greens were basically small versions of Augusta-contoured greens. Now a putt from the right side of 13, or the back of 17 isn't even that difficult anymore. 13 is one of the great par 3 designs in golf, if you chickened out on a left pin and hit right you were left with such a wicked putt, now the putt is slightly more difficult than routine. Makes me sad.

If you don't agree just remember this, this golf course was designed from the beginning to be a torture test for pro golfers. I am not advocating all courses be difficult, but I do think this one should be. I find it dull watching players shoot 9 under on this once-feared course.

[Mac Plumart]

We'll have a good idea on Sunday evening.

[Dean Stokes]

The fact that most of them hit 3 woods and now even irons off 18 tee says it all! They are hitting 8 irons into number 13 when it used to be 5/6 iron. It may not be the golf courses fault as much as an equipment issue.

[Matt Kardash]

The fact that most of them hit 3 woods and now even irons off 18 tee says it all! They are hitting 8 irons into number 13 when it used to be 5/6 iron. It may not be the golf courses fault as much as an equipment issue.

Well, them making it look pristine instead of scruffy and softening all the greens is the PGA Tours fault. Compared to 1982, players are now playing a much shorter course, enjoying better lies off the fairway, and putting on greens with less contour. Other than that it's the same course, right?   

[Terry Lavin]

It is, for us regular chops!

[Josh Tarble]

I don't know, when I played my group and I were all pretty amazed at how easy it was playing. Granted the greens were not running at tour speeds, but at regular people speed I thought they were less than fearsome.

I think the speeding up and flattening of greens has had just as much of an effect than anything else.

[John McCarthy]

OK, where do I get a Mutual of Omaha hat? 

Or an Amanda hat?

[Matthew Essig]

Yes it is still a torture test, but nothing like it once was.

[Andy Troeger]

I found it to be pretty playable--I did not play well but it was mostly self-induced!

There aren't many places hard enough to be torture tests for those guys.

[Matthew Essig]

Not sure if you guys have seen this article:

http://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/the-players-championship/news/2013/05/07/dorman-column-players-greatest-stadium.html

To to sum it up: Dye is coming back to add some distance to some of the par 4's.

And if you don't want to open the article, or it doesn't work:

And there’s also a little something more you should know about Pete Dye, who has slowed down not one bit as he approaches the halfway mark of his 87th year. Still on top of his game, he is busily at work, finishing one course renovation project in Ocean Ridge, Fla., and planning for two others to begin in the summer, including a renovation of The Golf Club in Columbus, Ohio.

After he’s finished with his upcoming obligations, Dye said, he would “like to go back and do a little bit more work on the TPC Sawgrass.”

What he has in mind, though, has nothing to do with softening contours. It has to do with lengthening and toughening four of the par-4 holes at the Stadium Course that he believes have been shortened by the distances current players hit their drivers and irons.

He’s talking about substantially lengthening: No. 5, currently 471 yards; No. 7, currently 442 yards; No. 14, currently 481 yards; No. 18, currently 462 yards.

“They might as well expand it, because these pros are just hitting it so far now that these long par-4 holes are not challenging them anymore,” Dye said. “We could that. It would be simple. There’s plenty of land. There’s room to do it.”

It would require some room because Dye is thinking the holes should measure in the 520-yard neighborhood, which would mean adding approximately 240 yards to the overall golf course.

“I’ve talked to Mr. Finchem about it,” Dye said. “He’s hesitant to do it, but he’ll do it someday. It has to be done. To make those guys hit a 3-iron or 4-iron for their second shot, you’ve got to do it.”

After all, it didn’t get to be Golf’s Greatest Stadium by maintaining the status quo.

[Jim Nugent]

They first held the Players at TPC Sawgrass in 1982.  If my arithmetic is correct, here are the average scores since then, rounded off (though each was nearly exactly the rounded figure):

1980s (8 events):  11 under

1990s (10 events):  13 under

2000 and on (13 events):   12 under

Greg Norman shot the tournament record in 1994, at 24 under.  The 1990s also had the 2nd and 3rd lowest scores (a tie at 18 under), a tie for 5th lowest (16 under), plus 7th lowest (15 under).  So all three of the lowest scores came in the 1990s, plus 2 more of the lowest ten.  

Even so, the averages are pretty close to each other.  If the weather/conditions were pretty much the same, the course is not playing harder now than in the 1990s, and barely harder than in the 1980s.    

Have they made any other changes that toughen Sawgrass?  

ETA:  I did make a mistake in the arithmetic.  There were 8 events in the 1980s, not 9.  So I've corrected the average, though the numbers are still pretty much the same. 

[Matthew Rose]

I think if anything, the par-fives are probably too short. All four of them are easily reachable now, even #9 with a good tee shot. #9 should probably be over 600, and I think they could make 2 and 11 a bit longer.

18 should probably be ~500. I don't know if I'd do too much to the others though. I thought 14 held its own pretty well today and they even had it up one tee. One of the things I like about Sawgrass is the shorter fours they have mixed in there.

Should they do the unthinkable and add 10-15 yards to #17? Pretty much everyone was Gap Wedge or Sand Wedge today.

[Jason Thurman]

I'm with Mac. I think we'll know more Sunday. One guy shot a great round today but the guys in 2nd are right about where you'd expect to see them.

Matthew, I wouldn't lengthen 17. It's a test of accuracy, not a test of distance. I'm not aware that pros are any more accurate from 137 yards in 2013 than they were in 1982, even if they a hit shorter club from that distance now thanks to myriad reasons. That hole is still more than punishing for plenty of players.

That's why I don't worry too much about lengthening. The course was playing hard and fast today, and with the wind guys were hitting 200 yard 8 irons. I know that sounds crazy, but 8 is really just a number. It's still a 200 yard shot and the guys I was watching weren't particularly more accurate with it than I'd expect them to be with a 4 iron from 200 yards. I haven't seen any data yet that makes me think a 200 yard shot is anything less than a 200 yard shot, and regardless of what club a player hits, it's pretty hard to be consistently accurate from that distance.

I don't think a few extra yards would hurt, but I also don't think the course is easy. It's funny that we so often talk about "fast and firm" around here but, when the pros see fast and firm conditions and start hitting 300 yard 3 woods and 200 yard 8 irons we start clamoring for rollbacks or extra length. I suspect we don't see many shots from the guys who are running balls through fairways and into rough or hazards, but the scores tell me they must be out there.

[Matthew Petersen]

It just comes down to conditions. These are the very best of the best players in the world. They will always have their way with a soft golf course and Sawgrass has been getting a ton of rain recently. Maybe by Sunday it will have dried out some. Even if not, it remains a challenging test. They put up a graphic yesterday showing how much 54-hole leaders have struggled there over the past few years. That's the kind of stat you normally see in a major, which speaks well of the course's difficulty (as well, I suppose, of the event's prominence). You also don;'t see guys going out early on Sunday and shooting 64 to suddenly jump into contention. When they go low it's usually on Thursday or Friday.

[Mac Plumart]

The Leaderboard, as of right now, sure seems to be filled with the best of the best.

[Matt Kardash]

So I am concluding that the answer is no, it is no longer a torture test.

[Matt Kardash]

So Tiger is hitting 5 woods even on the longest of par 4's and still has a short iron into the green. I'm sure that makes Dye kind of sad. Let's break down how the average tour player is playing the holes:

1. 3-wood - wedge
2. 3-wood - wood or iron into par 5
3. short iron
4. 3 wood - wedge
5. 3 wood - short iron
6. 3 wood - wedge
7. 3 wood - short iron
8. long iron (what?? crazyness)
9. driver - iron or wood into par 5
10. 3 wood - short iron
11. driver - long iron into par 5
12. Long iron - wedge
13. shortish iron
14. driver - mid iron, or 3 wood short iron
15. 3 wood - short iron
16. 3 wood mid iron into par 5
17. wedge
18. 3 wood mid iron

Nope, no longer a torture test. It's more like playing a difficult drive and pitch course now.

[Thomas Dai]

Matt,

Interesting analysis. Well done for highlighting this.

I looked into this issue a few weeks ago on a thread about ANGC and The Masters using a method of analysis similar to what you have done with TW's round at TPC Sawgrass.

I got a bit of flak over it at the time, but I still reckon if a player who hits a wedge say 100 yds and a driver say 220 were to play exactly the same clubs as TW did in the round you describe the length of course would only equate to about 5,500 yds in total. If readers are skeptical I suggest you run the numbers for the yardages you hit the ball with each club yourself and see what length of course you come up with.

I said in my previous post about ANGC-The Masters that I reckon for Pro's of TW's length and ability you'd have to go up near 10,000 yds for par to be relevant these days, unless the weather intervenes.

All the best.

[Mac Plumart]

Thomas, I think you are on the right path.  Max Behr did an analysis similar to your and had similar conclusions, but obviously from a different era.

Matt, is there a torture test left on tour given modern balls and clubs?


Perhaps the answer is extreme greens?

[Mark Bourgeois]

So Tiger is hitting 5 woods even on the longest of par 4's and still has a short iron into the green. I'm sure that makes Dye kind of sad. Let's break down all the short irons into every hole

1. 3-wood - wedge
2. 3-wood - wood or iron into par 5
3. short iron
4. 3 wood - wedge
5. 3 wood - short iron
6. 3 wood - wedge
7. 3 wood - short iron
8. long iron (what?? crazyness)
9. driver - iron or wood into par 5
10. 3 wood - short iron
11. driver - long iron into par 5
12. 3 wood - wedge
13. shortish iron
14. driver - mid iron, or 3 wood short iron
15. 3 wood - short iron
16. 3 wood mid iron into par 5
17. wedge
18. 3 wood mid iron

Nope, no longer a torture test. It's more like playing a difficult drive and pitch course now.

It is totally offensive that someone could hit almost no drivers yet contend. That represents an absolute betrayal of Dye's intent.

I did see an article that Dye is being called back in to lengthen the course. It is just absolutely bizarre that it would be far less expensive and far more beneficial just to change the ball; instead, the decision is to spend more money and in exchange for what?

BTW, the Golf Course Histories twitter feed shared this Dye quote the other day:

"While I don't have anything to say about the highly manicured condition of the golf course these days, I do believe the rustic nature of the Players Course was lost over the years. That has lessened its demanding design features, but no wind & soft greens have probably contributed more to the low scores, since the course was originally designed to play firm."

So it's not just what Roger Maltby a few minutes ago called the "civilizing" of the course or in the same conversation Johnny Miller called the "Augustafication" -- they were discussing how Sergio would not have caught a break on his lousy drive left of left on 10 (I think that's the hole) had he hit that shot 30 years ago (or maybe even just 20 years ago).

It is also the way the course is maintained on a daily basis (soft greens).

[Carl Rogers]

I wonder why the scoring is not much lower?
.... hitting a tee shot with a fairway metal should find the short grass, but they don't seem to be
.... approach shots with short irons should be closer to the hole, but they do not seem to be

were the old guys a generation ago as accurate with a 6 iron as todays golfers are with a pw?

did not the course start out as a sub 6900 yards long?

[Tom ORourke]

Maybe I am a little nuts here but I feel like we are watching a preview of Merion. I know the courses look completely different, the grasses are different, but isn't Merion going to be a place where drivers are rare? Where angles are everything? Where putting the ball in the right spot of the green makes things much easier? Where missing greens in the wrong spot is death? Where the rough will speak volumes to how you score? I feel you need the same shots at both places, and this leader board (maybe minus Lingmerth) could look very much the same, including the score.

[Matt Kardash]

So Tiger is hitting 5 woods even on the longest of par 4's and still has a short iron into the green. I'm sure that makes Dye kind of sad. Let's break down all the short irons into every hole

1. 3-wood - wedge
2. 3-wood - wood or iron into par 5
3. short iron
4. 3 wood - wedge
5. 3 wood - short iron
6. 3 wood - wedge
7. 3 wood - short iron
8. long iron (what?? crazyness)
9. driver - iron or wood into par 5
10. 3 wood - short iron
11. driver - long iron into par 5
12. 3 wood - wedge
13. shortish iron
14. driver - mid iron, or 3 wood short iron
15. 3 wood - short iron
16. 3 wood mid iron into par 5
17. wedge
18. 3 wood mid iron

Nope, no longer a torture test. It's more like playing a difficult drive and pitch course now.

It is totally offensive that someone could hit almost no drivers yet contend. That represents an absolute betrayal of Dye's intent.

I did see an article that Dye is being called back in to lengthen the course. It is just absolutely bizarre that it would be far less expensive and far more beneficial just to change the ball; instead, the decision is to spend more money and in exchange for what?

BTW, the Golf Course Histories twitter feed shared this Dye quote the other day:

"While I don't have anything to say about the highly manicured condition of the golf course these days, I do believe the rustic nature of the Players Course was lost over the years. That has lessened its demanding design features, but no wind & soft greens have probably contributed more to the low scores, since the course was originally designed to play firm."

So it's not just what Roger Maltby a few minutes ago called the "civilizing" of the course or in the same conversation Johnny Miller called the "Augustafication" -- they were discussing how Sergio would not have caught a break on his lousy drive left of left on 10 (I think that's the hole) had he hit that shot 30 years ago (or maybe even just 20 years ago).

It is also the way the course is maintained on a daily basis (soft greens).

Those aren't even the clubs Tiger hit. Those are what I figure the average player is hitting. Tiger was hitting 5 woods off most tees, even on long par 4s and some par 5s. It's insane

[Jim Nugent]

So I am concluding that the answer is no, it is no longer a torture test.

The average winning score from the 1980s, when they started playing the Players there, is basically the same as now.  So how was it more of a torture test back then? 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim,

I have two thoughts. I am not sure the winning average score is the correct metric; in fact I'm pretty sure it isn't. And the course was made easier starting right after the first TPC played there, so most of the 1980s scores should be placed in the "after" bucket.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()