Do long hitters have too much of an advantage?

[Eric LeFante]

A cornerstone to GCA is risk vs reward. The 8^th hole at Shinnecock is a good example; it’s about 290 yards to carry the bunkers on the left from the back tee. If a player is able to do this, he will be rewarded with a wedge approach AND a better angle to approach the green vs the right side of the fairway.

http://www.usopen.com/course/8.html

Think about how Brooks Koepka and Ian Poulter played this hole; Koepka hit driver down the left and Poulter had to go down the right side of the fairway because he couldn't carry the left bunkers.

Did either player really have a decision to make on the tee? Koepka can carry the left bunkers, wants a wedge approach shot, and wants the best angle to get his second shot close. Poulter cannot carry the left bunkers so he needs to go down the right side of the fairway.

The architect can’t change the fact that Koepka can outdrive Poulter by 30+ yards, but should the architect also give Koepka the better angle?

What if the better angle was from the right side of the fairway? Now Koepka has a decision to make; lay up down the right, have a longer shot into the green but a better angle, or hit driver down the left, have a wedge in, but have the less desirable angle.

Long hitters can have a shorter approach shot on most par 4s and par 5s; isn’t that enough of an advantage? Should architects give them a better angle as well?

[JESII]

In my opinion, to place a 300+ yard shot into a 10-15 yard area is a tremendous feat worthy of the advantage it delivers in this case.


That said, I noticed far fewer guys than I thought challenging that area off the 8th tee. Don’t have an answer for why (and my sample size was pretty small, having not seen a ton of the coverage), but this particular hole really can divide.


Poulter’s triple in Rd2 or 3 was evidence of the difficult approach from the right side.

[Kalen Braley]

Eric,


I've often wondered myself why this mechanism isn't used more.


Drive it further, have a shorter approach with a worse angle and have to fly a nasty bunker or green slopes working against you.
or
Lay it back, with a longer approach, and a much better angle.

[JESII]

Because the term is Risk-Reward...not Risk-Crap Sandwich...


Haha

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,


Isn't having a shorter club in your hand a reward in and of itself?  Approach from further out with a 5 iron or closer in with an 8....

[Tom_Doak]

Eric:  the answer to your question is yes, on many holes, partly for the reason you cited.


The problem is that most designers are good players, and in rewarding what they consider to be a good shot - THEIR OWN good shot - they punish shorter hitters.


The TOUR compounds this in their setups.  If Tiger can carry the bunker but Zach Johnson can't, no problem, Tiger is being rewarded for his skill.  But if there's wind and Tiger can't carry the bunker, they will often move the tee up, and reward Tiger and punish Zach again!


Jim S (a good player!) agrees with this approach, but qualifies it that the player is making a long carry to a small area.  I just think rewarding the guy who can hit to a tight spot is more equitable than rewarding the guy who can bomb it over all the trouble.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - re the 'tremendous feat'. It is, and the longer hitter should have an advantage. But:
Read the other day about a recent  club test -- the machine/iron byron had a persimmon driver hit the ball 5-8ths of an inch off the sweet spot, and then had the latest 460 cc driver hit them 5-8ths of an inch off the sweetspot. Average distance loss with the modern driver? 6 yards. Average distance loss with the persimmon? 49 yards.
Once upon a time, the longest hitters - Norman, Nicklaus etc -- really *earned* their advantage; and the risks they took for the reward they gained were *significant*. Today not so much.
Peter

[JESII]

Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?

[Eric LeFante]

Jim - re the 'tremendous feat'. It is, and the longer hitter should have an advantage. But:
Read the other day about a recent  club test -- the machine/iron byron had a persimmon driver hit the ball 5-8ths of an inch off the sweet spot, and then had the latest 460 cc driver hit them 5-8ths of an inch off the sweetspot. Average distance loss with the modern driver? 6 yards. Average distance loss with the persimmon? 49 yards.
Once upon a time, the longest hitters - Norman, Nicklaus etc -- really *earned* their advantage; and the risks they took for the reward they gained were *significant*. Today not so much.
Peter

Great point Peter

[Eric LeFante]

The issue with the 8th at Shinneock is ONLY the long hitters can hit to the left side of the fairway and get the best angle.

A hole like the Road hole at St. Andrews rewards anyone (not only long hitters) who takes a risk by playing to the right side of the fairway with a better angle to the green.


Depending on the wind, 6 at Carnoustie will reward anyone who hits their tee shot down the left side. I think the carry over the two bunkers in the fairway is only 270 so I'm worried that if there is a light breeze into the players, DJ can still clear both bunkers without having to take on the OB and ZJ needs to the play the hole the way it was designed.

[Steve Kline]

Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?

This was what I was going to respond with.


A cornerstone of GCA seems to be undulating greens. But, that gives an unfair advantage to good putters. Let's even it out.


A cornerstone of GCA is holes that move in all directions with wind affecting holes differently. But, that gives an unfair advantage to guys that can really work the ball versus calls that can only hit one way.


Hitting it long is an advantage.


Having good touch is an advantage.


Having the ability to work the ball is an advantage.


We could go on and on.


If you can put multiple skills together, you have a larger advantage.

[Eric LeFante]

Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?

This was what I was going to respond with.


A cornerstone of GCA seems to be undulating greens. But, that gives an unfair advantage to good putters. Let's even it out.


A cornerstone of GCA is holes that move in all directions with wind affecting holes differently. But, that gives an unfair advantage to guys that can really work the ball versus calls that can only hit one way.


Hitting it long is an advantage.


Having good touch is an advantage.


Having the ability to work the ball is an advantage.


We could go on and on.


If you can put multiple skills together, you have a larger advantage.

But Steve, should architects GIVE long hitters an additional advantage by allowing them to get an angle that short hitters cannot get to?

[Steve Kline]

Should Ian Poulter have to putt into a smaller hole than Koepka?

This was what I was going to respond with.


A cornerstone of GCA seems to be undulating greens. But, that gives an unfair advantage to good putters. Let's even it out.


A cornerstone of GCA is holes that move in all directions with wind affecting holes differently. But, that gives an unfair advantage to guys that can really work the ball versus calls that can only hit one way.


Hitting it long is an advantage.


Having good touch is an advantage.


Having the ability to work the ball is an advantage.


We could go on and on.


If you can put multiple skills together, you have a larger advantage.

But Steve, should architects GIVE long hitters an additional advantage by allowing them to get an angle that short hitters cannot get to?

Isn't that also happening with the other skill sets I mentioned? The green has some slope in it protected by a hazard and the better putter also hits his irons better so he can access the hole location better.


I think everyone is making the assumption that because you hit it longer you get an additional advantage by hitting a wedge. For a long time, DJ could blow it by everyone but he couldn't take advantage of it as he should because he wasn't the greatest wedge player in the world.


Further, I remember running some stats in college (long before all the really sophisticated stats coming out of PGA Tour data and its analysis) and there really wasn't much correlation between any one stat and wins or money won. So, being able to hit long is advantage, but it is no more of an advantage than any other skill set.

[Kalen Braley]

I agree that every skill is needed, but distance seems to correlate the most with success on tour.


In all, 43 players on the PGA Tour in 2017 averaged 300 yards or more off the tee, and their average official prize money was $2,546,061. The other 147 players who had official stats last season had a combined average prize money of $1,362,608.
https://golfweek.com/2018/04/22/golf-by-the-numbers-distance-off-tee-pays-dividends/

[Thomas Dai]

A cornerstone to GCA is risk vs reward. The 8^th hole at Shinnecock is a good example; it’s about 290 yards to carry the bunkers on the left from the back tee. If a player is able to do this, he will be rewarded with a wedge approach AND a better angle to approach the green vs the right side of the fairway.

http://www.usopen.com/course/8.html

Think about how Brooks Koepka and Ian Poulter played this hole; Koepka hit driver down the left and Poulter had to go down the right side of the fairway because he couldn't carry the left bunkers.

Did either player really have a decision to make on the tee? Koepka can carry the left bunkers, wants a wedge approach shot, and wants the best angle to get his second shot close. Poulter cannot carry the left bunkers so he needs to go down the right side of the fairway.

The architect can’t change the fact that Koepka can outdrive Poulter by 30+ yards, but should the architect also give Koepka the better angle?

What if the better angle was from the right side of the fairway? Now Koepka has a decision to make; lay up down the right, have a longer shot into the green but a better angle, or hit driver down the left, have a wedge in, but have the less desirable angle.

Long hitters can have a shorter approach shot on most par 4s and par 5s; isn’t that enough of an advantage? Should architects give them a better angle as well?

The plot thickens.........Ian Poulter and Brooks Koepka are playing together tomorrow in the 1st (and then 2nd) round of The Open at Carnoustie.
Atb

[Eric LeFante]

Steve,


Players that can consistently work the ball both ways are more skilled ball strikers than players that can only work the ball one way.


Greens with undulation are more interesting than flat greens.


If you don't believe those two statements then you really can argue anything you would like.


If a player can move the ball both ways and is a good putter he SHOULD have an advantage over a player who can only move the ball in one direction and is a bad putter because he is a better golfer.


If a player can hit the ball a long way, does that mean he is a better golfer than a short hitter? I don't believe so. No matter how much Zach Johnson works out, he will never be a long hitter.


Should an architect penalize ZJ (8th hole at Shinnecock) by forcing him to hit his tee shot to the right side of the fairway, which means he has a more difficult angle into the green than a long hitter who hits it down the left?

[Joe Hancock]

Every once in awhile, a hole like the 8th at Shinny is OK in competition. No one would want a whole course full of that kind of sway.

[Mark Saltzman]

Isn’t what Eric is talking about referred to as a reverse dogleg? Perry Maxwell built many, many of these where the golfer was rewarded with the preferred angle by playing to the outside of the dogleg.

[Matt Kardash]

I've noticed Pete Dye often gives golfer the choice. Go for the long drive but the bad angle, or the shorter drive with the better angle.

[Sean_A]

Ross courses are replete with the short or long option off the tee.  Except in the case of Ross it is often playing to the top of hills or trying to reach the bottom over the hill. Of course, back in the day I expect the issue was about reaching the top of the hill or not.  I think once equipment made tee shot placement an option the holes became better.  Now, its too easy for too mnay people to blow drives over hills.  I guess my point is we need to be careful about archie intentions because unless we know a course quite well over a long period of time, its east to draw the wrong conclusion about archie intention.

Ciao 

[Steve Kline]

Steve,


Players that can consistently work the ball both ways are more skilled ball strikers than players that can only work the ball one way.


Greens with undulation are more interesting than flat greens.


If you don't believe those two statements then you really can argue anything you would like.


If a player can move the ball both ways and is a good putter he SHOULD have an advantage over a player who can only move the ball in one direction and is a bad putter because he is a better golfer.


If a player can hit the ball a long way, does that mean he is a better golfer than a short hitter? I don't believe so. No matter how much Zach Johnson works out, he will never be a long hitter.


Should an architect penalize ZJ (8th hole at Shinnecock) by forcing him to hit his tee shot to the right side of the fairway, which means he has a more difficult angle into the green than a long hitter who hits it down the left?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Working the ball both ways is a skill. Putting is a skill. But, so is hitting long AND straight. If people aren't believing that is a skill worth rewarding on some risk-reward holes go check out some college golf or high level amateur events. There are plenty of guys that can hit it long, but not all of them hit it long enough to keep it where they need. Just look at what has happened to one Eldrick Woods. He can still hit it long, but for years now he has had a really hard time keeping the driver in play with any consistency.

[JESII]

Jim - re the 'tremendous feat'. It is, and the longer hitter should have an advantage. But:
Read the other day about a recent  club test -- the machine/iron byron had a persimmon driver hit the ball 5-8ths of an inch off the sweet spot, and then had the latest 460 cc driver hit them 5-8ths of an inch off the sweetspot. Average distance loss with the modern driver? 6 yards. Average distance loss with the persimmon? 49 yards.
Once upon a time, the longest hitters - Norman, Nicklaus etc -- really *earned* their advantage; and the risks they took for the reward they gained were *significant*. Today not so much.
Peter

Peter, this is a strange test, and post. I doubt any of the guys on Tour miss the sweet spot by 5/8 of an inch twice per week...but if they do, it’s the Zach Johnson and Ian Poulter type ball strikers.


While Dustin Johnson’s skill in hitting the ball is certainly different than Norman’s, and the equipment enables it to be, he has managed to separate himself from the field just as significantly in my opinion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - there's much I don't know, including the likelihood/frequency of such mishits and who today is the most naturally talented/gifted driver. (They all hit it so far and straight, but my eyes say it's Rory.)
I mentioned the test (besides the lens it provided on technological change) because it brought this to mind:
A great putter, today, would have just as much of an advantage at Augusta as Ben Crenshaw did 30 years ago.
A great game manager/strategist like Tiger in his prime has as much of an advantage now as  Hogan and Nicklaus had in their days.
A great short game magician and bunker/recovery specialist has as much of an advantage at The Open today as Seve and Trevino had in their day. 
BUT -- in terms of driving the ball, the moden technology 'flattens the curve' and mitigates the differences in natural talent and ability more than ever (or so it seems to me). Almost everyone back in the late persimmon era recognized Norman as the best driver -- but his advantage disappeared virtually overnight with the advent of titanium.
I don't know who today is the best/most talented driver in golf - but to get back to Eric's original question, it's ironic that whoever that is he has *less* of an advantage over everyone else than ever before. They *all* hit it long and straight...except for the poor guys who don't
Peter

[Michael Felton]

I am a little torn on this one. I think hitting it longer should absolutely be an advantage. I don't have a particular problem with it being a big advantage. That said, I like the risk-reward concept a lot. To my mind that means that you can hit it short and hit to a wide fairway and be assured of being in the short grass, but you get a worse angle and/or a longer shot into the green. Or you can pound driver into a narrower space (the risk) and get the shorter shot from a better angle (the reward). My impression of 8 at Shinnecock was the longer shot was both wider and gave the better angle, so it's more like reward-reward, not risk-reward.

[JESII]

Michael, the right side of the eigth fairway is definitely not the preferred angle. Probably the greatest disparity on the course with respect to gaining an advantage based on the side of the fairway.


Peter, Rory is probably correct...and your last sentence says it all for me.


I think the top players have further distances themselves from you and I but don’t think Ian Poulter is any closer to Rory (off the tee) than whomever might be a relatively poor ball striker might have been to Norman in 1986. Not sure how to study/debate it, but Rory has periods that are just astonishing from the tee.


In truth, with golf, I always think there’s more to it. Driving it 330 and missing the green with a wedge is certainly not as valuable as hitting it 280 and hitting a 6 iron 15 feet below the hole. I find it really difficult to relate to Mark Brodie’s statistics. Smarter people than I say they’re sound so I’ll defer...I just think if you could put Ian Poulters demeanor in Rory McIlroys Head you’d have Tiger Woods...and that demeanor is unmeasurable.