Are links golf architecture designs such that fewer clubs makes the game easier?

[David Davis]

The Harry Carry thread reminded me of my experience the last two winters when my home course (a links course) is carry only (i.e. no push carts or trolleys). Being lazy I only take half my clubs so it looks something like this: P, 56, 9, 7, 5, 2 hybrid, 3 wood or Driver. I'm sure it's nothing special however, I find with utilization of the ground game it really doesn't make any difference in my scores, in fact often I end up playing better not just on my home course but also on other links.

In the old days there seemed to be fewer clubs, especially when all these old school links courses were designed and the ground game was prevalent everywhere. I'm wondering if the designs intentionally play out better to players utilizing fewer clubs, less decisions etc. or is it simply that taking away a lot of the low percentage clubs on these tight lies (60 degree etc) and perhaps forcing the ground game just increases your effectiveness in trying to pull off higher percentage/conservative shots? Would this be the same for other Golden Age designs for example?

[Jay Mickle]

Playing my hickories, I score as well with 8 clubs: putter, niblick, 2 approach cleeks (24 & 30 degrees), spade mashie, bulldog spoon, brassie and driver. Distances along the  ground are a matter of touch, like putting, rather than club selection based on loft. Other clubs may be necessary on some.par 3s where specific carries may be required, so it is nice to know the course.

[Brent Hutto]

There is no circumstance under which fewer clubs can possibly make the game easier. It's just a logical contradiction. Having 14 clubs and only using 3 of them in a round does not make the game any more difficult than have 3 clubs and using them in a round.

That said it may well be true that the openings in front of greens, firmness and other features of many links courses which are designed to keep the course playable in a strong wind also serve to make it easier to create shots with a club one might normally not use. So I would buy that links golf in general places less value on a full complement of 14 club than does "target golf" in many inland settings. But the value of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th clubs can only approach zero, there's no way a club sitting in your bag that you choose not to use can have a negative effect on you golf game (although if your bag is on your shoulder they may have a negative effect on your comfort!).

When I hear people claim that forcing themselves to always use a 7-iron because they took their 6-iron and 5-iron out of the bag makes the game "easier", clears their thinking, causes them to relax, etc. what that tells me is they are way overthinking the game and making it seem like something more than it is. If not being able to decide between a 8-iron and 9-iron for a shot causes you distress, you need to work on your attitude and mental hygiene, not toss one of the clubs to avoid having to choose.

As in a lot of things, it ain't the clubs it's the guy swinging them.

[Thomas Dai]

David,

I wouldn't just limit this thought about using less clubs to links courses, I'd be inclined to include any kind of course that's firm and fast were the running game is preferable.

If you're playing a running approach half swing or three-quarter swing iron shot then the landing point and how the ball releases is key and the usual 3-4* loft difference between clubs probably won't make much difference to the outcome, so wider loft gaps are okay, which I suggest is very different to hit-n-stick golf where it's mostly full shots with known yardage gaps. The quality of the grooves on irons/wedges is a factor as well, yee olde or worn grooves and the ball is more likely to release, with modern spinny grooves you get more stickability. Also, the ball type has an effect, spinny balls want to stop, less spinny balls are more likely to release.

As links and other firm and fast playing courses install fairway irrigation however, this perspective changes as the 'land the ball short and chase it on' method is more likely to result in the ball being held up in the fairway and thus the hit-n-stick method becomes preferable in scoring terms to bump-n-chase and the hit-n-stick method is probably easier with more clubs in the bag.

Just a couple of cents worth.

atb

[David Davis]

Brent,

I see the point you're trying to make but it's not really the direction I was trying to go with this and that's likely my fault for communicating it incorrectly. I'm aiming more in the direction of design. It's only much later we've tried to make the game so much easier through equipment usages exact lofts to exact distances etc. All this does is really promote an ariel route for the most part which is perfect for parkland target golf but does this make the game easier with designs of links courses. I honestly don't think so.

Let me ask you this. Say I take you to Dornoch let you practice a little to bump and run 5 irons etc etc and take away all your lofted clubs except your sand iron to get out of bunkers. My premise is that this method will fit the architecture better allowing you to score better on your round because the architectural intent dictates this. (Better as in better than you would if I set you loose on the course with your full set of clubs).

There is no circumstance under which fewer clubs can possibly make the game easier. It's just a logical contradiction. Having 14 clubs and only using 3 of them in a round does not make the game any more difficult than have 3 clubs and using them in a round.

That said it may well be true that the openings in front of greens, firmness and other features of many links courses which are designed to keep the course playable in a strong wind also serve to make it easier to create shots with a club one might normally not use. So I would buy that links golf in general places less value on a full complement of 14 club than does "target golf" in many inland settings. But the value of the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th clubs can only approach zero, there's no way a club sitting in your bag that you choose not to use can have a negative effect on you golf game (although if your bag is on your shoulder they may have a negative effect on your comfort!).

When I hear people claim that forcing themselves to always use a 7-iron because they took their 6-iron and 5-iron out of the bag makes the game "easier", clears their thinking, causes them to relax, etc. what that tells me is they are way overthinking the game and making it seem like something more than it is. If not being able to decide between a 8-iron and 9-iron for a shot causes you distress, you need to work on your attitude and mental hygiene, not toss one of the clubs to avoid having to choose.

As in a lot of things, it ain't the clubs it's the guy swinging them.

[Brent Hutto]

Let me ask you this. Say I take you to Dornoch let you practice a little to bump and run 5 irons etc etc and take away all your lofted clubs except your sand iron to get out of bunkers. My premise is that this method will fit the architecture better allowing you to score better on your round because the architectural intent dictates this. (Better as in better than you would if I set you loose on the course with your full set of clubs).

I generally have the same 14 clubs with me no matter where I'm playing. But believe me, on a course like Dornoch I putt when I can putt and bump the ball with a 6-iron if that's available. Especially in the wind we had the one week I spent there!

I'll stick to my contention that leaving clubs out of the bag is not the key. It's knowing your game and be willing to go with what works, subject to the course and the conditions you face on the day.

Dornoch in particular has some greens where going ahead and hoisting the ball a certain distance through the air makes sense. A few of them are so perched up and the banks are steep enough that the running shot can be more risky than a plain old "hit my stock 7-iron shot" through the air. Although even that goes out the window in a 20-30mph breeze of course.

[Joe Hancock]

I think Brents' logic is correct. However, I have been playing w/ seven clubs in the bag for the past year, and one thing I know; I having a lot more fun playing because I have to try things with almost every shot, regardless of design or conditions. Not only that, but I can feel good after a round vs. being completely tired.

Joe

[Jay Mickle]

I don't know that links courses or older courses with openings to the green are easier but they don't necessitate the number of various lofted irons to accommodate forced carries on tee shots and bunkering that protects greens.

[Daniel Jones]

I think Brents' logic is correct. However, I have been playing w/ seven clubs in the bag for the past year, and one thing I know; I having a lot more fun playing because I have to try things with almost every shot, regardless of design or conditions. Not only that, but I can feel good after a round vs. being completely tired.

Joe

I also cut back to 8 clubs about a year ago, and agree...a course I've played for my entire life is suddenly a lot more fun because I'm trying shots I never thought to before. The other day, I put all of my clubs in my "cart" bag and couldn't believe that I used to lug that thing around for even 9 holes, let alone 18.

[Thomas Dai]

Do folks when carrying fewer clubs play better tactically, taking less chances, attempting less heroic gambles, using a generally more conservative approach to shotmaking?

Another aspect is how far you hit the ball. Longer hitters have bigger yardage gaps to fill-in, shorter hitters have narrower gaps. Also, olde age equipment gives less overall distance so likely to have narrower gaps.

My favourite part-set combination of modern generation clubs is normally Driver, 20*hybrid, 4, 6, 8, pw, 52*, 60* and putter. This gives me about 7-8* difference in lofts with the irons. With the driver, I go down the grip for certain tee shots, such as on long par-3's plus I also use it from the fairway. I also sometimes play hickory when I carry a brassie, lofted spoon, cleek/long iron, mashie/mid iron, mashie-niblick, lofted niblick and putter.

atb

[Carl Johnson]

I think Brents' logic is correct. However, I have been playing w/ seven clubs in the bag for the past year, and one thing I know; I having a lot more fun playing because I have to try things with almost every shot, regardless of design or conditions. . . .

Joe

What is this insanity about "fun" -- who said golf should be fun?   

[Brent Hutto]

I think Brents' logic is correct. However, I have been playing w/ seven clubs in the bag for the past year, and one thing I know; I having a lot more fun playing because I have to try things with almost every shot, regardless of design or conditions. . . .

Joe

What is this insanity about "fun" -- who said golf should be fun?   

I'm all about "fun". But David's question was stated as "...makes the game easier?" so that's what I refer to.

Some people (who I know and have played golf with) consider it "fun" to have a different set of clubs in the bag every couple of weeks and/or to play a round with three different 3-wood, alternating between them from hole to hole.

Others prefer to use antique wooden clubs for their "fun".

Still other prefer to grind out the absolute lowest stroke play score, making every round their own little US Open.

I don't find any of those three particularly interesting but we all make our own 'fun". For me it comes down to be playing as many holes of golf as possible in my allotted lifespan and if I'm lucky to play some of them on really interesting courses, preferably with firm turf. To that end my clubs are a bog-standard set of nice, durable cast stainless steel Pings. Total of 14 clubs although I'm sure I could have fun with 13 or 15 or any other number.

But "easier" is a far more answerable question than "fun" which ultimately comes down to doing whatever makes you happy and doesn't destroy the course or unnecessarily annoy other golfers.

[Sean_A]

David

I am down to 9 sticks for the winter and can certainly say the game is harder with fewer spanners.  There have been times where I would have been more comfortable hitting a club which is in me boot...maybe 2-3 times a round. I selected my irons based on getting out of trouble and playing bump n' runs around greens.  That said, I do think there are some links and inland courses which are more forgiving for fewer clubs than others.

Ciao

[David Davis]

David

I am down to 9 sticks for the winter and can certainly say the game is harder with fewer spanners.  There have been times where I would have been more comfortable hitting a club which is in me boot...maybe 2-3 times a round. I selected my irons based on getting out of trouble and playing bump n' runs around greens.  That said, I do think there are some links and inland courses which are more forgiving for fewer clubs than others.

Ciao

Sean,

What are you leaving out and why? Is it just because you don't want the extra weight?

I think the only courses that fit what I'm saying would be firm and fast links courses. It may also be that due to the quite adverse weather I'm really trying to focus on keeping everything on the ground or really low. I find it interesting how much danger you end up taking out of play. Say I have 150 meters which is an easy 6 or hard 7 normally, now I'm literally rolling up a 5 to keep the spin and height out of the shot. Of course there is almost always wind too I guess so a low ball takes that out of play for the most part. It's a strange feeling to play a tough links like this as its feels like you aren't taking it seriously but on many of these courses it seems to literally make it far easier which leads me to the question. Putter, sand wedge, 8 iron, 5 iron and 3 wood. Links golf. Driver is a nice to have.

[Brent Hutto]

I find it interesting how much danger you end up taking out of play. Say I have 150 meters which is an easy 6 or hard 7 normally, now I'm literally rolling up a 5 to keep the spin and height out of the shot. Of course there is almost always wind too I guess so a low ball takes that out of play for the most part. It's a strange feeling to play a tough links like this as its feels like you aren't taking it seriously but on many of these courses it seems to literally make it far easier which leads me to the question. Putter, sand wedge, 8 iron, 5 iron and 3 wood. Links golf. Driver is a nice to have.

Not to be bloody-minded about it but if "rolling up a 5 to keep the spin and height out" makes playing those courses in those conditions easier then surely it's the DECISION to use the 5-iron that is key. And that decision can just as easily be made standing over the ball choosing your shot as it can two hours earlier by taking a bunch of non-5-iron clubs out of your bag and leaving them in the car boot.

With the added advantage of having those other clubs available if some other circumstance dictates that some shot or another with a 6-iron or 7-iron would make things easier.

[Tom_Doak]

When I was preparing to play in the Hundred Hole Hike with Jim Colton two summers ago, I pared down to five clubs [driver, 5, 7, PW, putter] for weight and balance issues.

In my trial runs at Crystal Downs, I often found myself between clubs on approach shots ... not being able to carry a wedge onto the green, and having a hard time gearing down with the 7-iron because the course is not designed or maintained for bump and run approaches.  I'd say the course was 3-4 shots harder for me.

When I got to Scotland, I found the game much easier with fewer clubs.  As Brett Hutto says, part of it might have been just that it stopped me from over-thinking, but links courses are designed to allow for run-up shots and I was entirely comfortable playing low 5-iron or 7-iron approaches.  I stopped thinking about yardages almost completely on the day in St. Andrews, and just concentrated on the weight of the shot, the way I've heard some old-school golfers talking about playing on the links.

For what it's worth, I shot my three best rounds of that summer on our day in St. Andrews playing with only six clubs.  For me it seemed to make the game easier.  I just think it's different than how we are conditioned to playing now, and most people have trouble making the transition away from thinking about carry distance.

P.S. to Brent:  the decision is easier when the clubs are not there, because it's binary.  "I don't think I can get my wedge there, better hit 7."  Ask any tech guy, binary is faster than choosing between three or four options.

[Sean_A]

David

I was at 12 spanners, then dropped the 3 wood, 5 iron and flangeless sand wedge.  I am tryng to carry my clubs for most rounds despite back issues, but I want to cut down on the bag weight (I even bought a super light stand bag that I plan to use when the weather is dependable).  That leaves me with

driver
2 hybrid
7 wood
6 iron
8 iron
9 iron
wedge
sand wedge
putter

As I say, there is no question that not having a 5 iron especially has made some shots harder than they should be.  I also can't reach some long 4s and short 5s without the 3 wood...mind you, hitting the green is low percentage anyway, but its fun to have a go.  As I say, I keep the 6, 8 and 9 in the bag because they are good bump n' clubs around greens whereas the 5 iron doesn't have that dual purpose....half dead weight 

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Not just links courses for a few clubs only bag set-up. Painswick is almost ideal for just a few clubs.
atb

[David Davis]

Not to be bloody-minded about it but if "rolling up a 5 to keep the spin and height out" makes playing those courses in those conditions easier then surely it's the DECISION to use the 5-iron that is key. And that decision can just as easily be made standing over the ball choosing your shot as it can two hours earlier by taking a bunch of non-5-iron clubs out of your bag and leaving them in the car boot.

With the added advantage of having those other clubs available if some other circumstance dictates that some shot or another with a 6-iron or 7-iron would make things easier.

Brent ha ha you are quite stubborn indeed. Perhaps for you I would need to change the premise to saying that my bet is that you, the one who believes that having these fewer clubs would not allow you to play better, would actually play much better on these types of hard and fast courses I'm talking about with far fewer clubs and less choice forcing you to play the game the way the architects intended it to be played.

There you go.

[David Davis]

When I was preparing to play in the Hundred Hole Hike with Jim Colton two summers ago, I pared down to five clubs [driver, 5, 7, PW, putter] for weight and balance issues.

In my trial runs at Crystal Downs, I often found myself between clubs on approach shots ... not being able to carry a wedge onto the green, and having a hard time gearing down with the 7-iron because the course is not designed or maintained for bump and run approaches.  I'd say the course was 3-4 shots harder for me.

When I got to Scotland, I found the game much easier with fewer clubs.  As Brett Hutto says, part of it might have been just that it stopped me from over-thinking, but links courses are designed to allow for run-up shots and I was entirely comfortable playing low 5-iron or 7-iron approaches.  I stopped thinking about yardages almost completely on the day in St. Andrews, and just concentrated on the weight of the shot, the way I've heard some old-school golfers talking about playing on the links.

For what it's worth, I shot my three best rounds of that summer on our day in St. Andrews playing with only six clubs.  For me it seemed to make the game easier.  I just think it's different than how we are conditioned to playing now, and most people have trouble making the transition away from thinking about carry distance.

P.S. to Brent:  the decision is easier when the clubs are not there, because it's binary.  "I don't think I can get my wedge there, better hit 7."  Ask any tech guy, binary is faster than choosing between three or four options.

Tom, well said. I was started to feel like I was unable to get my point across. I honestly believe there is something here. I was also going to go into the distance issue and constantly trying to figure out which club goes which distance under the given circumstances. This becomes tougher in links golf due to the bounces and rolls, sure on flat ground you can figure it out but on undulated turf it's tougher. Then add the elements. I wonder if the modern material etc present far too many options to play the game the way it was originally designed ala St. Andrews.

It's really not just an equipment issue I'm convinced of that, just the equipment and complexity of the choices makes the game on truly fast and hard surfaces too difficult. Maybe even taking away the true original intention of how the game was meant to be played.

It's just a thought but I'd like to hear what more people think.

I'd challenge those of you playing courses that are appropriate to go try and it report back. ;-) Field testing. How does the effect of this simplification alter the way you view the architecture of the course? How does it affect your score, fun factor etc.?

[Michael Moore]

I'd like to hear what more people think.

My investment advisor has never once mentioned human happiness, fun, joy, nor anything remotely pertaining to one's soul. He only refers to making life easier, and I consider him wise in this regard.

As was evidenced on the beer thread, there is an instinctive push back against technological progress, and I am down with that. I only recently got a cell phone, I do not have cable TV, etc. But no matter what you might say about the phone and the web chiseling away at one's humanity, it is difficult to argue that they don't make life easier. The same is true for a full bag of fourteen clubs.

[Brent Hutto]

Not to be bloody-minded about it but if "rolling up a 5 to keep the spin and height out" makes playing those courses in those conditions easier then surely it's the DECISION to use the 5-iron that is key. And that decision can just as easily be made standing over the ball choosing your shot as it can two hours earlier by taking a bunch of non-5-iron clubs out of your bag and leaving them in the car boot.

With the added advantage of having those other clubs available if some other circumstance dictates that some shot or another with a 6-iron or 7-iron would make things easier.

Brent ha ha you are quite stubborn indeed. Perhaps for you I would need to change the premise to saying that my bet is that you, the one who believes that having these fewer clubs would not allow you to play better, would actually play much better on these types of hard and fast courses I'm talking about with far fewer clubs and less choice forcing you to play the game the way the architects intended it to be played.

There you go.

Now see, I did take your point correctly after all!  

I'm saying I'm quite certain your conclusion is incorrect, at least as it pertains to myself. I've had a 60-degree (or thereabouts) wedge in my golf bag every single time I've played a links/heathland/download course in the UK. And believe it or not, there hasn't been a single time where having that wedge in my bag forced me to hit the ball 30 feet high when the proper shot was a knee-high chip shot. And it won't happen in future either.

But that lofted wedge sure comes in handy when my ball is at the bottom of a steep-walled pot bunker. So I'm not about to make that one bunker shot a round more difficult just to avoid the effort (which is no effort at all) of leaving it in the bag when a running shot is called for.

P.S. I'm not saying it is impossible that having 14 clubs instead of 9 in your bag causes you some sort of confusion when faced with difficult or unfamiliar conditions. But my take on that perhaps some examination of your ways of thinking about what shot to play would be helpful in getting the most out of whatever number of clubs you happen to carry.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder if the modern material etc present far too many options to play the game the way it was originally designed ala St. Andrews.

It's really not just an equipment issue I'm convinced of that, just the equipment and complexity of the choices makes the game on truly fast and hard surfaces too difficult. Maybe even taking away the true original intention of how the game was meant to be played.

In a conference in St. Andrews a few years back, someone asked the R & A tech guy whether maybe they should change the limit to seven clubs to make the game a bit harder for the pros.  The answer was "I don't think our friends in the equipment business would like that."  In other situations that would be called "capture".

I've heard lots of old European players talk about getting the proper "weight" to a shot instead of thinking about it in terms of yardage.  When you are playing low shots it doesn't matter so much which club you're hitting, just how much of a full swing you make.

[John Kavanaugh]

I wanted to play Pinehurst #2 with one club because I thought it would be fun. They informed me that even with one club I had to take a caddie. I didn't have the balls to pay a guy just to carry my balls so I handed him a bag of 14 clubs. One club would have been more fun.

[Grant Saunders]

I could be mistaken but isn't there pictures and other reference to many of the players (of the links no less) in the early 20th century carrying rather large numbers of clubs?

Is not where the 14 club rule stemmed from?