[Scott Macpherson]

To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you?

Unless of course, you consider wind, the oldest hazard in golf!

Jeff,

I'll see your 'wind' and raise you ' rain and hail stones'. They are pretty old air bourne hazards also  

Scott

[Paul Gray]

To pick up on and summarise/bastardise David's excellent post: how many sutble intricacies do you see in the air around you?

Unless of course, you consider wind, the oldest hazard in golf!

Jeff,

I'll see your 'wind' and raise you ' rain and hail stones'. They are pretty old air bourne hazards also  

Scott

But can you read them from one inch to the next?

[jeffwarne]

I think its actually 15% or so.  Or, at least that many are capable of it.  Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.

Jeff,
230 yards carry in the air?
There are maybe? 2 golfers at my club(out of over 400 when you include spouses and kids) who could do that on a level tee shot.
(and we have a very young membership for a private club)
There are many more who would TELL you they could do that
I'm fully aware there are clubs where that number would be much higher, but 230 in the air is a pretty long way
15%?-no way
There are 25 million golfers out there in the US.
Remember 23 million of them are at The Villages

[Mark Pearce]

I think its actually 15% or so.  Or, at least that many are capable of it.  Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.

We aren't talking about 230 and 260 yards drives, we are talking about 230 yard carries.  Which is a long way.  A 260 yard carry is getting on for a 300 yard drive.

[Brent Hutto]

If I think of every golfer I've played more than, let's say, a handful of rounds with I can think of maybe two guys who routinely get 230+ yards of carry on their tee shots. Absent wind or downhills. And maybe two others who will carry it 230-240 but only when they catch one dead solid perfect.

Of course that may just be an artifact of the selection of people who choose to play with me (not, mind you, who I choose to play with because I'll gladly play golf with just about anyone). I've played one-off or very occasional rounds with probably a couple dozen long hitters like that. But make no mistake, being able to count on something like 230 carry/260 total with a driver is a long hitter compared to the population of golfers.

Our original poster is simply evincing his own version of "1-percenter" mentality.

[Jason Thurman]

To be fair, I think there's some merit to Ivan's suggestion that an occasional forced carry is actually something TRUE high handicappers get a kick out of. I'm not talking about the high handicappers on this forum, who play competitive golf with handicaps in the upper teens. I'm talking about the 35 handicappers who play in t-shirts at the local course with $25 weekend greens fees, many of whom are beginners and some of whom will "catch the bug" and become avid players in a few years.

The carry has to be reasonable - 100 yards at most from the "white tees" where most of those guys play, and less from the "red tees." A course also shouldn't have more than 1 or 2. But I have a ton of friends who have just started playing in the last few years, hit it crooked (several are former football players who hit it very long and crooked, while others are very short hitters), and very rarely make a par playing by the rules. Those guys love the game, and they love their occasional pars and very rare birdies, but they don't make enough of either to keep them coming back.

One thing that Pete Dye says in "Bury me in a Pot Bunker" that really stuck out to me is that he likes to give high handicappers some shots that are right at the limit of their ability, knowing that when they pull it off it'll be far more memorable than any par that they make or score that they shoot. That's certainly true for my buddies, and while they have about a 1 in 25 chance of parring any hole, they have at least a 50% chance of clearing 100 yard forced carry off the tee and it's a guarantee that they'll have a little pep in their step after pulling it off.

Of course, it works best if there's an alternate route around the forced carry for the older, savvier golfer who doesn't get the same thrill out of pulling off a 100 yard carry and just wants to be able to keep playing. And any course is greatly improved if the ball moves a bit when it lands. The best courses offer interesting aerial shots and interesting ways to use the ground as well.

The biggest issue with the proliferation of aerial play has been this idea that long, high shots should be "rewarded" by stopping quickly. Guys who can hit it high but have little trajectory control have worked loudly to create the perception that good golf and ballstriking is about playing drop-and-stop golf. In reality, the best ballstrikers with the strongest aerial games understand how to control flight and trajectory and land the ball where needed to get the best result. That's why, as others have pointed out, the best ballstrikers rise to the top on fast and firm courses and particularly links courses. Playing the game through the air does not exclude using the ground as well, and a lot of guys who claim they want a "good test of ballstriking" really just want to make sure they don't get stuck on a course that requires them to actually hit shots instead of just make drop-and-stop repeated golf swings.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think its actually 15% or so.  Or, at least that many are capable of it.  Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.

Jeff,
230 yards carry in the air?
There are maybe? 2 golfers at my club(out of over 400 when you include spouses and kids) who could do that on a level tee shot.
(and we have a very young membership for a private club)
There are many more who would TELL you they could do that
I'm fully aware there are clubs where that number would be much higher, but 230 in the air is a pretty long way
15%?-no way
There are 25 million golfers out there in the US.
Remember 23 million of them are at The Villages

Jeff,

Well, I have seen industry studies that statistically about 17% hit it 260+ total (and less than 1% hit it 300), which I presumed was 230 in the air.

 Actually these days, roll is far less a component for many, not all, than 20 years ago when you could presume at least 10% of a tee shot distance was roll.  Now, it seems to be tied to club and ball matching to reduce spin rate and is certainly not universal.

[Brent Hutto]

Jeff,

I'm not saying those studies are wrong but I'd be very interested in finding out what their denominator is for the 17% number. As well as knowing if it's measured or self-report.

I'd almost guarantee that 17% of people who volunteer information on their driving distance will report a number 260 or higher. But based on my own experience and observation that's can't possibly be the actual, real-world, measured driving distance of 17% of the people playing golf on a given Saturday morning in June. No way, no how it's even half that much.

[jeffwarne]

I think its actually 15% or so.  Or, at least that many are capable of it.  Probably a third to half of 230 yard drives are semi-missed shots from guys who are capable of hitting it 260.

Jeff,
230 yards carry in the air?
There are maybe? 2 golfers at my club(out of over 400 when you include spouses and kids) who could do that on a level tee shot.
(and we have a very young membership for a private club)
There are many more who would TELL you they could do that
I'm fully aware there are clubs where that number would be much higher, but 230 in the air is a pretty long way
15%?-no way
There are 25 million golfers out there in the US.
Remember 23 million of them are at The Villages

Jeff,

Well, I have seen industry studies that statistically about 17% hit it 260+ total (and less than 1% hit it 300), which I presumed was 230 in the air.

.

Jeff,
Those same industry standards said we needed to open a course a day for infinity.
Where on earth do they get such stats?
17% hit it 260?

[Pete Lavallee]

PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.

Ivan,

If I had a nickel for every time I have heard that remark I could retire today! As someone who can consistently carry the ball 230 yards I am curious as to what you shot at Rustic Canyon, Barona and Maderas; as a San Diego resident I am very familiar with these three courses. The difference between these three courses is that it is much easier to predict what will happen when the ball lands at Barona and Maderas; both great courses with many fun shots to be played. Rustic Canyon however has the imperceptible down canyon affect and predicting what your ball will do once on the ground there is much harder. After being open for 14 years the course record is 63; they have hosted numerous qualifiers with the regions best players competing here. They have not torn the place up, although they all probably wonder when slamming the trunk in the parking lot just what went wrong!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

There have been a few studies where someone just sits at a tee typical municipal golf course and records where the shots go, and how far they go.  One of the more recent was by a Dr. Brodie from Va Tech (I think) who studied 1200 tee shots from various A-D level players at some pro am.  None is a large sample and I may be a few % off since I am quoting from memory.  

You prompted me to go back to the files, and I was a bit off.  Actually, the 17% estimate was golfers who like to play courses at about 6800 yards or more, which I would equate with a 260 tee shot, as shown below.

These are the stats from a USGA one day study of middle tee players at some public course in NJ, done about ten years ago. The lines between is where I sort of arbitrarily split the tees into Black/Gold/Blue/White/Red for design purposes, sizing the tees to that amount of play.  That was based on an interpolation of some other industry study about preferred playing lengths.

280+-0.9% (1% prefer playing over 7000 yards)
-----------
270-2.5%
260-7.8% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
250-5%      (16% prefer playing over 6700 yards)
-----------
240-12%
230-11% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
220-8.5%   (57% prefer playing over 6300 yards, so obviously some shorter hitters play too long. We can probably shamelessly stereotype these as aging males refusing to move up)
-----------
210-1.7%
200-8.5%
190-12% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
180-5.0%   (19% prefer playing under 6000 yards)
170-3.4%
-----------
160-2.5%
150-2.5%
140-4.2% - AVERAGE OF GROUP
130-3.4%   (7% prefer playing under 5000 yards)
-----------
<100-9.2% (MUFFED SHOTS)

And, by the way, there is some other study out there on the percentage of time average golfers miss the full shot to some degree.  Seems like I saw one study where almost a quarter of all tee shots were muffed, not just 10%.  But my earlier point is, a lot of 230 yard shots are off center shots by guys who are capable of hitting it 260.  As it relates to carry, the question would be does a guy who can hit it 260 attempt the carry, presuming he will hit his best shot?  Or does he presume he will hit it 230 (with maybe 205-210 carry) and avoid the shot?  (if there is an option)

Most experts say any forced carry shouldn't exceed 2/3 of the total distance.  If you do a forced carry on the tee, you can control that.  )plus the ball is on a tee, adding to probability of success) If you do a Hell Half Acre somewhere mid hole, not only is everyone's carry distance different, but its not likely that all of them will get right to the edge of the hazard making it probably that a large percentage of players cannot make the carry.  Again, why put such a feature in if its probable that 2/3 of your golfers cannot play over it?  (sorry, topic drift from the HHA thread)

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

Respectfully, that's miles off then. What percentage of golfers play the right tees?

Ivan,

When you say unspectacular, do you actually mean subtle?

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm reminded again of Matthew M's wonderful post about playing hickory golf, and imagining links golf at the turn of the last century as being akin to a giant game of croquet, e.g. rarely getting the ball much off the ground, and so instead threading it being humps and bumps in the fairway, working it around hazards and carries.

Peter

[George Pazin]

I'm amazed at how many learned people, even on this site, read "ground game" and think the writer means someone can just top the ball around the course, all day long, and really not even play golf, just an enlarged version of putt putt.

On the larger issue raised, there are many excellent posts - Thomas Dai, Shivas, Jason's, Sean's. The only thing I'll nitpick out of Ivan's opening post is the word "consistently", and I will mostly just apply it to casual golfers.

I think the game of your basic casual golfer (of which on this site there are precisely zero) is highly misunderstood. The very notion of average drive is almost meaningless. When your shots have such a wide distribution, the average of them means very little. As such, the issue isn't so much the carry as the consequences of a missed carry: is it water or some other death penalty hazard, or is it merely rough or a bunker that can be negotiated by most levels of golfers?

If someone wants a course that makes no effort at pleasing the casual golfer, that's fine by me. But don't be shocked when it doesn't get enough play for the 1st or 2nd owner to make a go of it. I can make a 230 yard carry pretty easily, with more than 1 club in my bag, but I don't generally seek courses that emphasize that element of the game.

Lest anyone think my post applies only to my game, I will offer the following anecdote, and of course it's based on something I witnessed in person at Oakmont. It was during the playoff for the last match play spots in the 2003 US Am. Standing down with the guys teeing off on #11, I saw a competitor - and this is someone PLAYING TO GET INTO MATCH PLAY AT THE US AM, not a high handicapper, not even a low handicapper, a PLUS handicapper - top his tee shot. It actually went about 50 yards and ended up in the narrow stripe of grass that is mowed down for golfers walking off the tee. He managed to get his next shot up to wedge range and knock it close enough that, when it rattled out and he bogeyed and was eliminated, it was actually pretty exciting. Imagine how much less interesting it would have been if there were a pond carry of merely 100 yards off the tee, a joke for any low handicapper. He'd have dropped and been eliminated when he didn't hole his approach shot.

And that's on a course that is widely renowned as one of the toughest in the world for the best golfers. Somehow, it is able to accommodate all levels with virtually no true "forced" carries.

All the talk of average carry distances and percentages and all that stuff completely miss the point of golf, imho: here to there in as few strokes as possible. Doesn't say anything about how, just how many.

[Dave McCollum]

Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting.  It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

[Joe Zucker]

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

Isn't one of the architect's missions to present something fun/playable that players want to come back and play again?  I agree, the architect should challenge us and there is a balance between fun and challenging that must be struck.  Having one HHA or forced carry doesn't make a course too tough, but many could certainly be a detraction.

I don't believe a school test is a fair comparison.  The point of school is to prepare students for the future and build their intelligence.  While challenging courses may prepare golfers for future rounds, that's not the primary point.  The point is fun! Golf is game after all.

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think most beginners and high handicappers love forced carries off the tee, so long as they don't exceed much more than 120 yards or so - maybe 70 yards for ladies. That's enough to punish a mishit or topped shot, but not too far for anybody to manage with a well-hit ball. The sense of achievement in making the carry is tremendous for these guys, as I remember well from my early days as a golfer. My wife is currently at this stage in her development, and the joy on her face when she makes the fairway on one of the forced carries on our course is palpable, that joy remaining in her memory long after the subsequent four approach shots and five putts have been forgotten.

An additional forced carry is planned at Reddish Vale.  Our 7th hole is a very nice par 5 of 538 yards off the back plates.




A new tee box is being built which will extend the hole by 40 yards, bring fairway bunkers back into play for longer hitters, and necessitate a carry of 120 yards over the river before the fairway is reached.



I've yet to speak to anyone who doesn't see this as an exciting improvement to an already much-loved golf hole. Even experienced golfers love the spine tingling effect of having to get a decent shot away from the tee. Of course, the better player will be more concerned with those bunkers 220 yards out!

[Sean_A]

Duncan

Since you are now crossing rivers, maybe the club should think about a par 3 over the river leading to the 18th tee rather than the dreadful walk back for the current 17th.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think the cost of a new bridge would be the prohibitive factor there, Sean.

We are currently building a new path from the 16th green to the 17th tee along the river bank and away from the 16th fairway. While it will still be a 200 yard walk, at least it will be a scenic one.



My personal preference would be for a new 170 yard hole linking the green and tee, but that will have to wait!

[jeffwarne]

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

Patrick,
If you gave a third grader a calculus test, how would he do?
Forced carries are fine-but the player must have some ability to "take the test"
Ivan's answer that the player should "hit the gym" or "take a lesson" is ludicrous in many cases
Demanding a 200 yard carry by a player who carries it 100, yet plays the game quite well otherwise would make about as much sense.
Part of the test for the player is to determine an alternate route and part of the routing puzzle is to determine an option for the competent slower speed player or provide an alternate tee. This is solved more easily on a tee shot carry then a second, third, or fourth shot carry.

[Niall C]

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

Patrick

I agree with a lot of what you write in your post. Golf should be a test, it should be a challenge, however what makes some courses great and others a slog is the nature of the challenge. It's not difficult to set up a penal course where all that is required is straight hitting however to my mind that isn't great architecture nor is it all that fun.

Carries, off the tee in particular, can be great but not sure that a forced carry makes it better. In fact I'm pretty sure it doesn't. With a wee bit of thought you can still effectively give the good player a forced carry while giving the weaker player a way of going round the carry.

Niall

[Sean_A]

I think the cost of a new bridge would be the prohibitive factor there, Sean.

We are currently building a new path from the 16th green to the 17th tee along the river bank and away from the 16th fairway. While it will still be a 200 yard walk, at least it will be a scenic one.



My personal preference would be for a new 170 yard hole linking the green and tee, but that will have to wait!

Well now that your green fee has gone, tell the club to create a new 17th par three over water fund    Scrap the path going in the wrong direction, its funds spent diverting the player from the house 

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting.  It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.

That, Dave, is unfair. Ivan was perfectly polite and, as far as I can tell, the answers to his question have been similarly polite.

[Jud_T]

Forced carries are one thing, but the reality is that 95% of the game in the U.S. is an aerial game.  Aside from the handful of sand based courses and the upper crust of private clubs that spend big $$$s on maintenance to approximate F&F conditions, the ball doesn't run out unless you happen to catch a couple weeks of dry weather.  Yes it's nice to be able to find your ball and play it, but the average player on this side of the pond is not thinking about running shots and roll out.  He's dialing in a yardage on his GPS and hitting a club to that yardage, or attempting to.  I'm taking up billiards...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()