[Thomas Dai]

Frequency and positioning of hazards in the area where tee shots mostly land or run-out to.



The thread I recently raised entitled 'When playing 18-holes at your home course....how many times would you usually hit Driver from the tee?' - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,63761.0.html - raised some interesting responses.


A recurring point that I would now like to focus on is how the Driver, once a club feared by many if not most, has seemingly now become the easiest or one of the easiest clubs to hit.


We could debate the technilogical aspects and implications of this forever but I would like to examine a specific architectural aspect.


Namely, now that the Driver has become easier to hit should we have more hazards in the area where tee shots mostly land or run-out to?


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

When Frank Thomas wrote for Golf Digest, I posed a similar question, framed as with driver technology allowing straighter hits, could we narrow the play corridors.  His response was it really hadn't made a difference, so don't go narrowing down those condo canyons quite yet.

There was a 2009 driving dispersion study done at Virginia Tech.  D players still need up to 165 foot left and 200 foot right to contain their tee shots from 180-220 yards.  Some A, B and C players do, too.  It didn't look too different than a driving dispersion chart an ASGCA member did back in the 1970's.

And, the ball was always on the tee.  Big heads may allow a bit more distance and perhaps a bit straighter shot on what might have been off center hits (or whiffs) on old drivers, but a well struck ball with a slice spin still slices.

Now, if you are talking only about good players, that might be a different discussion.  But, they could always hit the driver, just not as far.

[Thomas Dai]

Not so much thinking of the 'playing corridor' or of narrowing it.


More thinking about the areas where most tee shots land or run-out to.


Should there be more hazards in these areas to offset the ease of hitting the modrrn Driver?


Atb


Edited thread title to reflect this.

[Mark Pearce]

No, because courses are so long that if most players have driver taken out of their hands then they aren't reaching a par 4 with their second.  Now that, fundamentally, isn't a problem.  There are many excellent par 4s I can rarely reach in 2.  However, one of the worst golf holes I have ever played is the 13th hole on the Hunting course at Slaley Hall.  There's a water hazard (a big pond) about 200 yards from the tee, with a slope down to it.  The result is that, for me, the "correct play" is a 5,6 or 7 iron off the tee (depending on conditions) and a 3 wood uphill off a downhill lie for my second shot.  It is genuinely awful and your suggestion would simply lead to more of these.

[Steve Lang]

   Jeff's comment on needed width was interesting.. everybody needs it though in different proportion

Couldn't resist to examine the numbers at 200, 250, and 300 yards. 

[Jerry Kluger]

Unfortunately this type of thinking has often led to the elimination of the drivable par 4.  It always seems to be that unless you are an enormous hitter there is no chance to go at a short par 4 because it requires a huge forced carry as there is no other option.  The best exceptions I have seen are the short par 4s on the front of Sand Hills, I believe 7 and 8, where most players can go at the greens with the only risk being a very difficult recovery shot if you miss but at least you have a chance.


Of course you can have challenging cross hazards in a fairway but don't take the driver out of the player's hands. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()