Random Thoughts after a Hiatus

[Jason Topp]

The pandemic has changed my daily habits to the point I do not check in here daily as I have for the last fifteen years.  Here are some random thoughts:


1.  470 yard holes - I added an out of town membership to Northland and am really enjoying the shorter par 5s which play as par 4s for the good players.


2. I believe there will be many more Brysons in the next ten years.  He is doing much better than the field without a superior wedge game.  He is gaining something like 6 shots on the field off the tee which is close to the difference between the leading money winner and someone who is struggling to retain his card.  His swing speed is huge but still 10 mph slower than the long drive guys meaning that more potential is out there. On a firm, fast and wide course he would be averaging 380 off the tee.  Would the game suffer if that were dialed back 20%?  I think not.  In 2005 I wrote on here that I thought 7800 yard courses would be necessary to present similar shot challenges to those faced in the 90's.  Turns out I was conservative. 


3.  The absence of bunker rakes works better than i thought it would - just having people smooth out footprints and place the ball in a good lie if it is in a footprint seems to work pretty well and must save a ton of labor for golf courses. 


4.  I have really grown to appreciate a shade tree during a hot summer.  I am starting to think my ideal course has no trees except for a big one to provide shade on each tee.


5.  I do not like those little devices that lift the ball out of the hole.  They seem more trouble than they are worth.


6.  I have learned alot about equipment during the lockdown.  I highly recommend TXG's youtube channel if you want to get relatively unbiased, technically savvy information.


7.  If you do not know about Decade Golf or Scott Fawcett you should get at least a passing understanding.  Fawcett is about as arrogant as they come but his and similar efforts at using data to develop golf course tactics is going to spread throughout competitive golf and will render many of the strategies we discuss endlessly here meaningless.  I applaud the work and struggle to make it fit with what I think constitutes a good golf course.   


8.  I have really enjoyed not travelling this year.  I have had more time for family and golf has been a terrific escape.  Area courses are reporting increased play which is good because they are not selling as much beer.


Anyway - stay safe.  I am thinking of this group.  I still love the game even though it apparently hates me.


Jason

[Jason Topp]

Oh - and upon reflection I am planning on getting out of the rater game.  I do not really care about course rankings other than to the extent it spurs good discussions about the merits of good golf course design.  The course I name as the best in Minnesota is really a random choice based on whim of recent experience.  Right now it is Northland but that could be because it is cooler next to lake superior and I do not lose golf balls there.

[PCCraig]

Jason -


We need more random thoughts from you on here, not less!


What is the most overrated and underrated holes at Northland?

[Jason Topp]

Jason -


We need more random thoughts from you on here, not less!


What is the most overrated and underrated holes at Northland?

Thanks Pat.  I am new enough at Northland that I am still learning it.  I don’t really even know which holes are held in high esteem.  Right now, I would argue 10 might be overrated.  It is just a tough penal hole.  A long #8 at Midland without the charm. 2 may be underrated.  That 2nd shot is tough to judge.  13, 14, 16-18 are about as good a stretch as one can play. 

[Criss Titschinger]

Jason, enjoyed the post immensely.

We've gone through 4 iterations of cup setups at the home course. We did the flipped cup, then the pool noodle, then the wire lift, now a plastic lift. I think the pool noodle is the best. The wire lift always gets in the way if you're directly online, hence requiring you to touch the flag stick. And the plastic lift is too damn thick. So while you can move it without touching the flag, it can still knock a good putt out.

Frankly, I'm just happy to be playing at this point. I've had two golf trips canceled, but I've been able to play two excellent Ohio courses, including my #1 want. I do miss traveling for golf, but I'm getting to see courses I may not have played otherwise. I'll be checking another one off the list next Wednesday.

Cheers, and stay safe everyone!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Would the game suffer if that were dialed back 20%?

Yes.

My 270 would become 216? No thank you. Someone who hits it 250 now hits it 200? C'mon.

20% is ridiculous.


And Scott's not the first or only person out there talking about this stuff. Nor is the stuff all that difficult. Hit it far, aim away from danger slightly. We called it "The Rule" and put "shades of grey" to it, he puts a few numbers to it… You can learn it in under an hour.

[Rick Shefchik]

Jason - I agree with you about Northland #2. Subtly great hole. Short but uphill with a diabolical green. It can be driver-wedge if you bust a drive, but you never see the entire flagstick, and if you're over the green, you're dead.


I have too much respect for #10 -- and too few pars there -- to call it over-rated. If I had to pick out one hole at NCC that didn't do much for me, it would probably be the par-3 #8. Just a long tee shot to one of the less interesting greens on the course. Of course, the other greens are tough to live up to.

[Jason Topp]

Jason - I agree with you about Northland #2. Subtly great hole. Short but uphill with a diabolical green. It can be driver-wedge if you bust a drive, but you never see the entire flagstick, and if you're over the green, you're dead.


I have too much respect for #10 -- and too few pars there -- to call it over-rated. If I had to pick out one hole at NCC that didn't do much for me, it would probably be the par-3 #8. Just a long tee shot to one of the less interesting greens on the course. Of course, the other greens are tough to live up to.

8 is a good choice.  One thing that is interesting that a friend pointed out - balls do not bounce up to the green.   The grain points back to the tee. Combined with slope the ball just dies.  I solved that by hitting the cart path on the right twice last time. 

[mike_malone]

Jason,


 I agree about the 470 yard holes that are designed as par fives. . Good players are frustrated if they don’t make 4 because the approaches are usually designed for short clubs so the better players get into trouble with their long shots.
I also think the short approaches to these three shot greens can be tricky on a well designed hole.


I would rather hit a nine iron full than a half wedge but I sure ain’t gonna lay up ! 

[Mark Pearce]

Would the game suffer if that were dialed back 20%?

My 270 would become 216? No thank you. Someone who hits it 250 now hits it 200? C'mon.

20% is ridiculous.

Why?  Just because that's your first impression?  If it's ridiculous, you'll be able to provide a well argued explanation, rather than a gut response.  I look forward to it.

[Jason Topp]

. . .

[V_Halyard]

This first episode of “Jason’s Random Thoughts Golf Companion Radio Program”
is platinum.
A collectors issue.

[V_Halyard]

Oh - and upon reflection I am planning on getting out of the rater game.  I do not really care about course rankings other than to the extent it spurs good discussions about the merits of good golf course design.  The course I name as the best in Minnesota is really a random choice based on whim of recent experience.  Right now it is Northland but that could be because it is

“cooler next to lake superior and I do not lose golf balls there.”

Solid pleasure based logic

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why?  Just because that's your first impression?  If it's ridiculous, you'll be able to provide a well argued explanation, rather than a gut response.  I look forward to it.

I've done so several times. I'll give you one reason now.

If a guy hitting it 270 is going to hit it 216, and Rory is going to hit it 253, EVERY golf course in the world will need to be redesigned for member play, as the guys who hit it 200 will hit it 160 or so, and the entire scale of everything will be out of whack. Fairways will play ridiculously wide, and 7000 yards will become 5600. Many courses don't even have tees at 5600, let alone three or four sets of tees SHORT of those yardages.

All to solve a "problem" that affects 0.01% of the game's players? 20% is ridiculous.

It's not my "first impression." It's not even my hundredth.

[David Ober]

Why?  Just because that's your first impression?  If it's ridiculous, you'll be able to provide a well argued explanation, rather than a gut response.  I look forward to it.

I've done so several times. I'll give you one reason now.

If a guy hitting it 270 is going to hit it 216, and Rory is going to hit it 253, EVERY golf course in the world will need to be redesigned for member play, as the guys who hit it 200 will hit it 160 or so, and the entire scale of everything will be out of whack. Fairways will play ridiculously wide, and 7000 yards will become 5600. Many courses don't even have tees at 5600, let alone three or four sets of tees SHORT of those yardages.

All to solve a "problem" that affects 0.01% of the game's players? 20% is ridiculous.

It's not my "first impression." It's not even my hundredth.

Yup.

[Ira Fishman]

Why?  Just because that's your first impression?  If it's ridiculous, you'll be able to provide a well argued explanation, rather than a gut response.  I look forward to it.

I've done so several times. I'll give you one reason now.

If a guy hitting it 270 is going to hit it 216, and Rory is going to hit it 253, EVERY golf course in the world will need to be redesigned for member play, as the guys who hit it 200 will hit it 160 or so, and the entire scale of everything will be out of whack. Fairways will play ridiculously wide, and 7000 yards will become 5600. Many courses don't even have tees at 5600, let alone three or four sets of tees SHORT of those yardages.

All to solve a "problem" that affects 0.01% of the game's players? 20% is ridiculous.

It's not my "first impression." It's not even my hundredth.

My 250 30 years ago with Persimmon and Balata has become 180 with the modern technology. All in favor of those short tees and wide fairways!


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

It's not likely that a new ball would cost every player the same % off their current distance.  Elite players gained much more than average players from the tech of the last 20 years, so one would think a rollback would cost them more, too.

[jeffwarne]

Why?  Just because that's your first impression?  If it's ridiculous, you'll be able to provide a well argued explanation, rather than a gut response.  I look forward to it.

the entire scale of everything will be out of whack.

ha! I've been saying that for 20 years!!!
Sorry couldn't resist..


Erik,
While I agree 20% is a bit much, I certainly don't think 15% would be too much for elite or athletic players, because I don't think the "average" short hitter  would see a 15% decrease as he doesn't optimize smash, launch, spin etc. and didn't really gain much from tech.
Back in the day "member tees" were rarely shorter than the "member" tees I see today-people just didn't object to long irons, fairway woods, or even that they couldn't reach in regulation on longer holes.The back tees were just anothe 10-20 yards further back.
6300-6500 was not uncommon at all 50 years ago from the member tees, but then again, everybody then wasn't "above average".




But if we want to go back to scale, look at many fairways from the 1920's-nearly as wide as they were long, now they are long narrow ribbons.
Ridiculously wide fairways with hazards within them where solid contact, skill, strategy and yes-length- were rewarded would seem far more fun than hunting for balls on well "protected" modern fescue farms.

[Peter Pallotta]

My random thought after the lay-off was that I am a lousy golfer with all manner of band-aid compensations in my swing; and that, since it's now or never I better start taking my first ever lessons with a CPGA golf professional -- and so I have: a young women not many years out  from playing high level college golf. I much look forward to getting better, in a card and pencil way. The appreciation of golf architecture will then take care of itself

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's not likely that a new ball would cost every player the same % off their current distance.  Elite players gained much more than average players from the tech of the last 20 years, so one would think a rollback would cost them more, too.

They gained "more" because they switched from balata to solid core balls, but everyone plays solid core balls now.

Bobby Jones could hit it 253, and I have good amateur level players who have optimized driver launch conditions. They'd lose the same 20%. Their 7000 yard courses would have to be 5600 to play the same.

[Sean_A]

Why?  Just because that's your first impression?  If it's ridiculous, you'll be able to provide a well argued explanation, rather than a gut response.  I look forward to it.

the entire scale of everything will be out of whack.

ha! I've been saying that for 20 years!!!
Sorry couldn't resist..

Erik,
While I agree 20% is a bit much, I certainly don't think 15% would be too much for elite or athletic players, because I don't think the "average" short hitter  would see a 15% decrease as he doesn't optimize smash, launch, spin etc. and didn't really gain much from tech.
Back in the day "member tees" were rarely shorter than the "member" tees I see today-people just didn't object to long irons, fairway woods, or even that they couldn't reach in regulation on longer holes.The back tees were just anothe 10-20 yards further back.
6300-6500 was not uncommon at all 50 years ago from the member tees, but then again, everybody then wasn't "above average".

But if we want to go back to scale, look at many fairways from the 1920's-nearly as wide as they were long, now they are long narrow ribbons.
Ridiculously wide fairways with hazards within them where solid contact, skill, strategy and yes-length- were rewarded would seem far more fun than hunting for balls on well "protected" modern fescue farms.

I am not convinced that shorter hitters won't lose something too close to the percentage long hitters do in a rollback.  Only one way to find out, roll back tech for elite players.  Hackers like myself can easily test the new equipment and decide if we want to play what the elite players do or stick with the bifurcation. I think that in the long run, if there is bifurcation, eventually anyone who keeps an official handicap will play the elite equipment.  It may take a generation,  but I gotta believe most kids coming into the game will want to play elite equipment.   

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Bobby Jones could hit it 253, and I have good amateur level players who have optimized driver launch conditions. They'd lose the same 20%. Their 7000 yard courses would have to be 5600 to play the same.

Another way to look at it is that what we used to think of as a long course [7000 yards] now plays like 5600 due to modern equipment and golfer conditioning.   

[Sean_A]

Bobby Jones could hit it 253, and I have good amateur level players who have optimized driver launch conditions. They'd lose the same 20%. Their 7000 yard courses would have to be 5600 to play the same.

Another way to look at it is that what we used to think of as a long course [7000 yards] now plays like 5600 due to modern equipment and golfer conditioning.   

7000 yards feels like a 7000. It was too long 35 years ago and it's too long for almost everybody today.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Random thought:
we talk about the historic moment when Colt brought links golf inland, and what that meant to the development of the game and of gca; but of course, while those great old architects brought over the strategies and naturalism of the original links what they couldn't bring with them was the wind. And that 'oversight' might've been the most impactful of all, by far -- because suddenly the 6500 yard course that could've served forever as a (wind-dependent) championship test for all golfers became technology-dependent instead....and thus the (ongoing) process of lengthening and narrowing and renovating and irrigating and flattening-while-speeding-up-greens at inland golf courses all over the world began.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Another way to look at it is that what we used to think of as a long course [7000 yards] now plays like 5600 due to modern equipment and golfer conditioning.   

Maybe if you want to go back to Francis Ouimet times. The longest Tour pros have been hitting it past 253 for a long time, and the longest decent ams have been hitting it past 216 for a long time, too.