News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jason Thurman

  • Karma: +1/-0
What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« on: November 27, 2015, 11:20:52 AM »
What are your favorite courses to drive the ball on, and what makes them special? Are there courses that are held back by a lack of emphasis on play from the tee?
"There will always be haters. That’s just the way it is. Hating dudes marry hating women and have hating ass kids." - Evan Turner

Some of y'all have never been called out in bold green font and it really shows.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2015, 11:36:32 AM »
I can think of three.

The first is Dewsbury where I learned to play. The course through a combination of doglegs and slopes gave an advantage if you hit a certain shape and often length.

The second is Huddersfield known locally as Fixby which required much the same.

The third is Wentworth West Course (Burma Road) again for the shaping it required of the tee.

Jon

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2015, 12:43:13 PM »
I can think of three.

The first is Dewsbury where I learned to play. The course through a combination of doglegs and slopes gave an advantage if you hit a certain shape and often length.

The second is Huddersfield known locally as Fixby which required much the same.

The third is Wentworth West Course (Burma Road) again for the shaping it required of the tee.

Jon


I love what Four Streams (Steve Smyers course outside DC) requires off the tee.  Like the Old Course, players of different skills need to aim at different places. There are a number of holes where it is best to move the ball left to right but only a few where a fade is best.  On 16 there is the opportunity to either hit a three wood to the right or cut the corner over the trees.  Interestingly. The trees have grown taller over the years so cutting the corner requires an ever high tee shot,
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2015, 01:03:30 PM »
Maybe not what you were looking for but for most amateur/handicap players no forced carries, no water and lots of width! :), and sort out the chaff from the wheat with a variety of tough green sites, angles etc.
Atb

Sam Krume

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2015, 01:21:12 PM »
I think The Addington asks all the questions you need for a test of driving fortitude. Uphill, downhill, fade, draw, blind & 3 woods. you got the lot....

Jaeger Kovich

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2015, 03:47:42 PM »
I think The Addington asks all the questions you need for a test of driving fortitude. Uphill, downhill, fade, draw, blind & 3 woods. you got the lot....


Excellent choice based on finding the right side of fairways and bending the ball in the air to get there. A straight ball will often run through and cause problems. One of my all time favorites, but it probably wouldn't have jumped into my mind as a great test of driving.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2015, 04:14:46 PM »

Sand Hills is probably my favorite driving course.  Plenty of room but plenty of upside for placing the drive well.  Throw in the wind and you face a healthy challenge but an enjoyable one.

One feature I really enjoy is a slope of some sort that can provide a big advantage if one takes a risk and places the ball correctly.  Sand Hills had that on a par five near the end of the round. 


On the first hole at Streamsong Red I blocked a drive and it caught a slope and ran well past my longer hitting playing companions.  Each round thereafter I was tempted to try and aim for that slope again but it is a big risk on a hole with an 80 yard wide fairway. 


Winding Farm's 14th has such a slope that I will seek, particularly into the wind. 

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2015, 04:37:57 PM »
There is just no substitute for rolling, undulating terrain in landing areas, IMO.  I wouldn't even try to name a particular course, like SHGC or any of the dunesland, links courses I have played.  The formula in my mind is rolling terrain, and preferably on a sandy, sandy loam or sandcapped surface where turf can be maintained for some bounce and roll, generally leaning to favor wider LZs with varied clear distinctions from left side or right and shorter LZ or deeper down range. 

That all seems obvious; and also obvious to me that a dead flat terrain where interest in driving challenges and options must be created by digging and positioning lagoons, or mowing lines of rough native areas, and soils and turf species and cultivars that require more water, with line of play constricted to one best choice, just doesn't cut it for me. 
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2015, 04:41:22 PM »
I suspect this question was asked because on another thread a poster didn't get Rustic Canyon because in his mind it didn't "test your driving". Why you could blast the ball willy nilly off the tee and "get away with it". He's certainly not the first golfers to have this opinion, David Wiggler and Matt Ward immediately come to mind as agreeing.  I suspect that in these golfers opinions the tee shot should have to avoid a certain penalty be it rough, fairway bunkers, water or width. That sort of dictated penal design leaves me wanting. I love a golf course like Rustic Canyon, Barona Creek or TOC where you actually think on the tee where you want to place your ball. Bending it to get there is a major plus.
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Sam Krume

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2015, 04:45:52 PM »
I think The Addington asks all the questions you need for a test of driving fortitude. Uphill, downhill, fade, draw, blind & 3 woods. you got the lot....


Excellent choice based on finding the right side of fairways and bending the ball in the air to get there. A straight ball will often run through and cause problems. One of my all time favorites, but it probably wouldn't have jumped into my mind as a great test of driving.


One of my all time fans as well. Just love it but I do wish they would clear some of the trees out. I like the old photos showing the shot into 12, it looks much more exciting than it does now and that's saying something.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2015, 05:17:39 PM »
Harbor Town is a great driving course. You can't be happy hitting the fairway there. You need to place your tee ball on the proper side of the fairway to give yourself the best opportunity to hit the tiny greens. Love that course.
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2015, 07:30:03 PM »
Old Town...enough width, but not excessive.  Very little rough which would create lost ball situations.  There is enough slope to create preferred lines of driving and the greens support this concept. 


Woking...almost ditto as above except there is more rough and more bunkers in combination with slope to create preferred lines of driving.


Little Aston...almost as above except bunkers are used to create preferred lines rather than slope.


St Georges Hill...see Woking.


Yeamans Hall Club...see Little Aston.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2015, 09:43:48 PM »

What are your favorite courses to drive the ball on,
and what makes them special?
Are there courses that are held back by a lack of emphasis on play from the tee?
 
Jason,
 
Four different questions.
 
# 1  FEAR
# 2  NGLA
# 3  Width.
# 4  That would seem to depend upon the presentation or lack of strategic
       presentation at the target green.
       


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2015, 09:08:23 AM »
I suspect this question was asked because on another thread a poster didn't get Rustic Canyon because in his mind it didn't "test your driving". Why you could blast the ball willy nilly off the tee and "get away with it". He's certainly not the first golfers to have this opinion, David Wiggler and Matt Ward immediately come to mind as agreeing. 

Actually you have Matt Ward pegged wrong.  I learned a fair amount from debating with him here and from his feedback on several of my courses.  He didn't always want to punish the wayward drive or the short hitter; he just wanted there to be something to reward an exceptional drive.  This is easier when you have natural slopes to work with, but even at Streamsong, we managed to build several fairways where a drive that's turning the wrong way shuffles off to a much tougher angle for the second shot.

BCowan

Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #14 on: December 01, 2015, 09:13:15 AM »
I'm going to agree with Arble, that Old Town has some of the best strategic driving options.  The narrow creek also is used to create this on a few holes as well as the slopes previously mentioned.  I'd pick Orchard Lake as runner up, offering very good strategic options especially on the front side.  Note to self, play more Maxwell and Alison courses...

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2015, 09:24:05 AM »
I suspect this question was asked because on another thread a poster didn't get Rustic Canyon because in his mind it didn't "test your driving". Why you could blast the ball willy nilly off the tee and "get away with it". He's certainly not the first golfers to have this opinion, David Wiggler and Matt Ward immediately come to mind as agreeing. 

Actually you have Matt Ward pegged wrong.  I learned a fair amount from debating with him here and from his feedback on several of my courses.  He didn't always want to punish the wayward drive or the short hitter; he just wanted there to be something to reward an exceptional drive.  This is easier when you have natural slopes to work with, but even at Streamsong, we managed to build several fairways where a drive that's turning the wrong way shuffles off to a much tougher angle for the second shot.


Tom I played Musgrove Mill with Matt.  I don't want to say much about him because I enjoyed his company and he doesn't post here anymore.  Musgrove is demanding off the tee on many holes.  It requires both distance control and accuracy, although the fairways a pretty wide.  Matt is very long off the tee and he insisted on hitting driver off every tee and drove it into trouble much of the time.  I like a course that requires both distance and accuracy, not on every hole, but the drive should not always be just hit it as hard as you can.

Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Peter Pallotta

Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2015, 08:46:31 PM »
Tommy, Tom -

your posts reminded me of an aspect of match play that I don't think is ever mentioned around here, i.e. that match play reinforces a seemingly natural/human tendency to think in terms of "parts" instead of the "whole" -- and  therefore tends to negatively highlight (in the mind of the better/longer/straighter golfer) those individual golf holes that don't clearly and overtly provide him the advantage he (probably rightly) thinks he deserves.   

A golf course, and a design, and game of golf, is or at least in my mind should be "cumulative". We use many terms for this: we enjoy 'the journey' (over 18 holes) and praise 'the flow' of a particularly good routing and appreciate the 'variety' of hard holes and easier holes following each-other in engaging ways etc.

But what we rarely seem to note is that the scoring is cumulative as well -- at least in stroke play it is. Over 18 holes, all the good/bad shots and long/short drives and wise/foolish choices will result in the better golfer that day shooting a lower cumulative score than the average golfer.

We all know that; we have all experienced that, countless times. And the courses - classic and modern -- that we tend to enjoy and value the most are the ones that manage to test the better player but not demoralize the average one. In other words, a course where the lower score will not be too low and the higher score won't be too high.       

Now, in that context -- i.e. the stroke play context -- even a very long hitting and better player (let's called him "Matt") will be satisfied that he is "being rewarded" for his ability to hit the ball a long way and to hit it fairly straight. He can look at the scorecards at the end of the round and have proof -- by the numbers -- that he has scored better than his lesser skilled and/or less long hitting opponent. 

Some holes would've been "easier" and "more forgiving" and some holes harder, and some holes would've been too short to have given him a big advantage while a couple of the Par 5s might've been long enough to have given him a real edge; but all in all he is satisfied with the story that the final scorecards tells -- especially since the scorecards will also likely show that, on occasion, the golf course proved to work markedly in his favour, i.e. holes where he got a "3" and his opponent a "6".   

Sure, the "Bad and Sadistic Matt" might wish for more punishments and more severe punishments  for the wayward driver or short hitter; but the "Matt We Know and Love" would have had enough instances where his superior length and accuracy were rewarded that he won't demand that others fail miserably/are embarrassed to boot -- and in fact, he'll probably rate the golf course quite highly because of this.       

But now, let's take either Matt (the sadistic or the loveable one) and put him in a match play contest, where each individual golf hole counts/is worth exactly the same, and where the better player can't possible go up 2 or 3 strokes on a single hole, but only and always by 1.

In that context, the tendency to look at the "parts" and not the "whole" suddenly and dramatically comes to the fore. Now, that easy/short hole isn't part of a lovely routing or wonderful journey   -- instead, it becomes the vehicle by which the weaker/shorter/more errant golfer "is not punished enough" and/or where the longer/straighter/better golfer is "not rewarded enough".  And it's not surprising that "Matt" would think that  -- because now in match play the reward for good/long hitting play is reduced to a "1 Up" on the scorecard; and indeed, if his average (but lucky) opponent manages to recover after a short, crooked drive to hit the green and make a long birdie putt, old "Matt" might actually be looking at - egad! - "All Square".

Suddenly, "Matt" will get to each new tee box not with a genteel impression that, overall, this is a good golf course and a fine design, content in the feeling that all is right and fair with the world. No - now each hole has to be designed and clearly be shown to provide "an advantage" to the better golfer (good Matt) or at the very least severely "punish" the weaker/crooked/shorter golfer (the sadistic Matt).  Now each hole is highlighted, its importance in the overall scheme magnified, and thus becomes that by which the entire course might be judged. 

And at the end of that round, if "Matt" has 'only' won 2 and 1, watch out. When he writes about that course and rates it, he might try to be kind (like a policeman patting a stray dog's head), but he can never call it a "great" or "championship" course.

Peter
(jeez louise that's a long post - sorry)
« Last Edit: December 01, 2015, 09:55:52 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2015, 09:00:09 AM »
Peter:  not sure I agree with the last half of your post; I think "Matt" only goes sadistic if he loses the match.  But you do bring up my initial reaction to the topic.  I wasn't going to post at all, because I'm not sure it's productive to break down a course in this way.

To me, what's import is that all the pieces work in harmony.  I don't build tough greens just to test your short game; I build them to make it difficult if you get to the wrong position.  And if you drive poorly you substantially reduce your chances of reaching the right position on the green, because of distance or angle or both.  It's only the best drivers of the ball who want you to be punished immediately... so that your superior iron play or short game can't bail you out.

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2015, 09:03:26 AM »
A course where you can hit driver on every par four and five, and maybe even on one of the par threes.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2015, 09:34:14 AM »
TD writes: 

"It's only the best drivers of the ball who want you to be punished immediately... so that your superior iron play or short game can't bail you out."

Interesting observation. Could it be expanded as another way to think of the distinction between penal and strategic gca?

With penal architecture the organizing principle is to punish missed shots immediately. With strategic architecture the organizing principle is to defer punishments for missed shots. Both types of gca punish misses, but they do so in very different ways.

Bob 

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2015, 09:54:38 AM »
My favorites would always be courses that make you think and make choices on each hole. Specifically to utilize different clubs. This for me would never be a course where driver is the go to club on every hole.


Looking at specific courses I'd say I definitely agree with Old Town, however so many others, most of the world's top courses do this effectively in my book. This also shouldn't be confused with questions about width or rough maintenance. Sure there are courses that "we" would like to see maintained with more width in order to bring out the strategy involved with the angles of approach, quickly, great courses like Merion and Winged Foot come to mind. However, they are great tests of driving as well regardless of this in my opinion.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2015, 10:00:03 AM »
I don't know Bob...I haven't been there but the Road Hole bunker has always seemed to me to be the ultimate strategic feature and yet extremely penal if you're in it...


Does a truly strategic hole need penal features to work properly?



I've never really gotten my hands around this penal versus strategic distinction. Sometimes I feel they're two ends of the same continuum and other times they seem like two entirely different concepts that co-exist on every shot depending on who's hitting it.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2015, 10:12:48 AM »
Jim -


I don't think the degree of punishment inflicted by a hazard has a bearing on whether it functions as a penal or strategic feature.


The RH bunker is massively difficult, but it serves an essential strategic purpose on the hole.  That is, a miss-placed drive (a drive hit left, away from the dangers of the stationmaster's garden) means that the bunker must be engaged on the next shot, making for a very difficult approach. Thus the penalty for the missed drive is not immediate, but deferred to the next shot, your approach.


A well-placed drive on the Road Hole (that is, one placed right, skirting the SM's garden) means you can approach the green without engaging the RH bunker directly, an easier shot.


Bob


   

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2015, 10:26:29 AM »
My first reaction to the question is simply width, wind and a problem(hazard, terrain, angle, etc.).
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes for an ideal test of driving?
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2015, 10:33:10 AM »
Bob,


To that I agree...but the bunker shifted from strategic on the drive to penal on the approach, no?


On the approach, after a good drive down the right, it's a lateral hazard that can ruin a score...


On the approach, after a good drive, would you play the hole differently if the sand were replaced with water?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back