[Matthew Petersen]

The fairway widths really don't matter, since the players don't think about hitting the fairway, anyway.  I overheard Claude Harmon say recently that he has NEVER worked with Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka on trying to hit more fairways.  It's just not a part of their thinking; they only think about hazards and obstacles when deciding where to aim or when not to hit driver.

If the PGA grows the rough deep and thick -- so it becomes a real hazard -- DJ and Brooks will have to think about fairways, won't they?

How did that work at Bethpage? The deep and thick rough is there for everyone.


Harding Park should play 200 yards shorter so maybe that brings a few more guys into the fold. But that's still within the context of allowing a few more guys the ability to bomb and gouge. Thick rough hasn't really shown the ability to stop bomb and gouge, unless it is paired with really firm greens. I don't know that San Francisco is May is conducive to firm greens to begin with and even if it is possible I'm not sure how interested the PGA would be in dialing it up anyway.

[Jim Nugent]

The fairway widths really don't matter, since the players don't think about hitting the fairway, anyway.  I overheard Claude Harmon say recently that he has NEVER worked with Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka on trying to hit more fairways.  It's just not a part of their thinking; they only think about hazards and obstacles when deciding where to aim or when not to hit driver.

If the PGA grows the rough deep and thick -- so it becomes a real hazard -- DJ and Brooks will have to think about fairways, won't they?

How did that work at Bethpage? The deep and thick rough is there for everyone.

Only six players shot under par for the week at Bethpage.  One example of how the rough took its toll: on his very first hole, DJ faced a 125 yard second shot out of the rough.  He hit his wedge 42 yards and made bogey.
Your comment about rough being there for everyone applies to all hazards.  That doesn't make them irrelevant to long/strong hitters. 

Harding Park should play 200 yards shorter so maybe that brings a few more guys into the fold. But that's still within the context of allowing a few more guys the ability to bomb and gouge. Thick rough hasn't really shown the ability to stop bomb and gouge, unless it is paired with really firm greens. I don't know that San Francisco is May is conducive to firm greens to begin with and even if it is possible I'm not sure how interested the PGA would be in dialing it up anyway.

Will HP really play shorter?  San Francisco is (in)famous for its 'heavy' air that makes golf balls fly shorter.  Maybe it's a myth, but Olympic Lake, e.g., supposedly plays way longer for that reason.  Harding Park is, what, a half mile or away from Olympic? 

[Brad Payne]

If it's 50 degrees and foggy, it should play long enough, even at 7,200 yards.  The ball doesn't fly nearly as far there, although I think Rory still reached no. 4 in two at ~600 yards and 55 degree weather at the 2015 Match Play.

[David_Tepper]

Unless the rough is up to their knees, it would not surprise me if the winning score next May is 270 or lower.

[Gib_Papazian]

The real problem is Harding Park is just not a compelling or interesting golf course. We were out during the reconstruction several times years ago and I've never bothered to play the finished product, even though it is right down the street from our club entrance.


Not saying it sucks, because it is a "good" golf course - and worth a try. BUT, it could have held up its head in a tough neighborhood and simply falls short . . . . . . . the PGA Tour did not put enough thought into the last 10%; I get the Tour assholes want everything straightforward with little room for creativity, but there is nothing out there that blows up my skirt.


I might take a peek, but Harding is what Golf's Most Beloved curmudgeon would call "A Lost Opportunity." 

[Matthew Petersen]

Only six players shot under par for the week at Bethpage.  One example of how the rough took its toll: on his very first hole, DJ faced a 125 yard second shot out of the rough.  He hit his wedge 42 yards and made bogey.
Your comment about rough being there for everyone applies to all hazards.  That doesn't make them irrelevant to long/strong hitters. 

Jim, you suggested that the long rough might make Brooks/DJ and the like think twice before hitting driver (they would have to think about hitting fairways). My point was that philosophy didn't hold true at Bethpage. Yeah, Dustin had a bad go of it with a wedge from the rough on his first hole of the tournament. The thing is, he still hit driver over the corner on that hole the next three days (and made two pars and a birdie in those three plays). And he finished second, so his philosophy for how to play the course doesn't seem to have been wrong.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

3)  The fairway widths really don't matter, since the players don't think about hitting the fairway, anyway.  I overheard Claude Harmon say recently that he has NEVER worked with Dustin Johnson or Brooks Koepka on trying to hit more fairways.  It's just not a part of their thinking; they only think about hazards and obstacles when deciding where to aim or when not to hit driver.

Perhaps they should. (A number of the players with whom we work care about driving it not only "between the ropes" but also hitting the fairway. As much as bomb-and-gouge was the mindset for awhile, it's shifting back to understanding what length can and cannot do for a player. In my experience anyway.)

The rough is about a 70-yard penalty on the PGA Tour, or about 0.2 to 0.25 strokes. Right now, players like Dustin Johnson and Brooks are accurate enough to hit the fairways a good chunk of the time, and this combined with the way Tour events pay out, you're better off having a few hot weeks and finishing well up on the leaderboard while missing a bunch of cuts over playing steady golf all year and finishing top 40 every week, missing only a few cuts.

(Which I wouldn't change, but that's OT.)

Only on the par 5s.  Pretty much every par 4, with the exception of maybe 18, they'll probably be ok with a wedge from the rough on the approach...

Wedge from the rough (say 120 yards): 3.08
Whatever from the fairway (180 yards): 3.08
Wedge from the fairway (120 yards): 2.85 (0.23 strokes gained)
And those are regular PGA Tour events, not majors.

Even 80 from the rough (2.96) is about the same as 160 from the fairway (2.98).

http://widgets.penguin.com/features/everyshotcounts/table-5-2.png

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

Those numbers seem to confirm my argument which is.

If you bomb it as far as you can, even if you miss the fairway, you can still do as well as the guy who can't hit it as far and is 50+ yards back in the fairway.  But if you hit the fairway even just half the time, you're gaining a big advantage.  From that perspective, there seems little incentive to lay back and why we see so many bombing and gouging with impunity.

P.S. And don't forget how much worse off you'll be if you try to lay back to 180'ish and miss the fairway.  I'm guessing 180 yards from the rough is a far worse number. It also doesn't take into account how often the short hitter will be screwed because even 50 yards behind you he's not hitting that fairway anywhere near 100% of the time with driver in his hands.

[Jason Topp]

Eric: 


I recently heard Tim Herron say on a podcast that they shortened the rough at some point because players were injuring their wrists trying to hank out of it.  Is that true?


I believe bomb and gouge has nothing to do with equipment but rather has a lot to do with players better understanding statistics and competitive pressures weeding out the short hitters.  A short straight hitter has too big of a disadvantage over a long hitter who misses the fairway a bit more.  That could be overcome 25 years ago because fields were not as deep but cannot be overcome today.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you bomb it as far as you can, even if you miss the fairway, you can still do as well as the guy who can't hit it as far and is 50+ yards back in the fairway.

The numbers "confirm" that for you? They don't to me.

First, it's not 50 yards, it's about 60-80 to average the same score. Second, the gap between the short hitters and the long hitters isn't 50 yards on the PGA Tour. It's only 30 yards from 10th to 10th to last. Third, a quarter of a shot every time they are in the rough is a very stiff penalty to pay. It's tough to reconcile that.

Where it does reconcile: when the long hitters only miss the fairway one or two more times per round than a short hitter, and particularly so if it's on a par five where they may still reach anyway. Thing is… it's not like long hitters are all crazy wild. They're still pretty accurate, and when you adjust for the added 20-30 yards, almost just as accurate as a shorter hitter by angular accuracy.

Everyone's got a slightly different balance spot, but if you're the type of player who can give up 15 yards but hit 1.5 more fairways per round… often the math says you should.

But if you hit the fairway even just half the time, you're gaining a big advantage.

The math doesn't really support that claim, but I can see how you'd think that if you think that PGA Tour players are separated by 50+ yards. To do well driving you've still got to hit a good number of fairways. Brooks last year: 62%. Fifth place? 72%. That's only about 1.4 fairways per round. Brooks hit it, on average, 20 yards past Stenson.

I recently heard Tim Herron say on a podcast that they shortened the rough at some point because players were injuring their wrists trying to hank out of it.  Is that true?

Is it true that he said it? I think I heard that too.Is it true that "they" shortened the rough because of injury? I don't know who "they" are and I don't know about anything like that being done due to injury. I know Phil at Oakmont had a bandaged wrist because of his practice, supposedly, back in 2007, IIRC?

I believe bomb and gouge has nothing to do with equipment but rather has a lot to do with players better understanding statistics and competitive pressures weeding out the short hitters.  A short straight hitter has too big of a disadvantage over a long hitter who misses the fairway a bit more.  That could be overcome 25 years ago because fields were not as deep but cannot be overcome today.

It's true, but some of the longer hitters are also, as I said, just looking to hit the ball off the tee well enough a few weeks a year. A quarter shot every time they're in the rough is quite a penalty.Then again, the economics, prize money/points distributions, etc. may say otherwise.


My main point here: the rough isn't penalty-free. Even at a wedge distance of 120 yards, players are better off hitting it from anywhere inside of 180 in the fairway than they are being in the rough with a sand wedge.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()