Webb Simpson on distance debate-need better golf design

[Lou_Duran]

Only in the land of 15 handicaps that is GCA.com would a guy who is 37th in the world in putting not be considered an elite putter.

Or that they (the pros) have nothing to add on the subject of gca.

My family has been building roads for over 90 years now. Every innovation in construction has been in response to the abilities and needs of those who drive. Your input would be welcome and invaluable.

JK- what's got into you man?  It must be true that with age comes wisdom.   Golf as an industry could learn a lot from listening to its customers.  Nothing prevents a club player from moving up one or more sets of tees.  Olympic-Lake at 6400- yards is probably a lot of fun for most golfers, though relatively few would complain at "having" to play the middle tees or even the backs.

Who would I rather listen to, JC's 15 handicapper or Webb Simpson?  My odds of gaining something useful out of it are a whole lot better with the latter.

[Tom_Doak]

Who would I rather listen to, JC's 15 handicapper or Webb Simpson?  My odds of gaining something useful out of it are a whole lot better with the latter.

About how to play golf?  Webb.


About golf course design?  Why would his opinion matter more than any other golfer?  If you were a developer, would you listen to your customers, or to a guy you had to pay just to show up?

[Daryl David]

One thing I don't understand about this game is how you can become one of the best golfers in the world and not understand golf design.

I used to feel the same until I played with some folks that were very good players, but could care less about the course. I remember hosting a very good player from the Bay Area as a favor for a friend. The player told me he knew nothing about golf courses, design or maintenance. Asked me if I knew what kind of grass we were playing on. (It was Bermuda) Said he didn’t understand all the talk of strategy and design. Said golf is a boring game of hit it, then hit it on the green and then put it in the hole. Said it was like bowling.  Said he only played a few times a year as part of socializing for business. Said while it was a nice way to be outdoors, he would rather read a book.


Finished the round.  He was 4 under after missing several short putts. Should have been 8 under. I asked if he enjoyed it. He said I was good company. Nothing about the golf. I guess golf is a big tent.....

[Rob Marshall]

Seriously, a couple times a year and was 4 under. Sounds like a douche.

[Mike_Clayton]

Who would I rather listen to, JC's 15 handicapper or Webb Simpson?  My odds of gaining something useful out of it are a whole lot better with the latter.

About how to play golf?  Webb.


About golf course design?  Why would his opinion matter more than any other golfer?  If you were a developer, would you listen to your customers, or to a guy you had to pay just to show up?

Having had dinner with pro golfers six nights a week, 35 weeks a year for 15 years believe me the most knowledgable ones on the subject were the ones who understood they didn't know much about golf course architecture.


A few years ago I was just back from a side-trip to Royal County Down when I ran into Sam Torrance.
I asked him if he'd ever played it.


'Nope - if I haven't played it in a tournament, I haven't played it."
Even funnier was playing a Senior Tour event at The Torrance Course (which he'd obviously 'designed") near St Andrews.
There is a stone wall running up the right of what was playing as the 4th hole (they used a different routing from normal)
Sam sliced one over the ball and asked his caddy for another ball.
John Huggan, caddying for me, had to point out over the wall wasn't OB.
Manuel Pinero was our third. "And I've been worried about that wall all week."!!

[Daryl David]

Seriously, a couple times a year and was 4 under. Sounds like a douche.

Yes, somewhat. He showed up in cargo shorts. Had to buy a normal pair in the golf shop. When I told our director of golf how well he played after the round, he replied, “I don’t give a shit if he shot 59, those cargo shorts had to go”

[Kalen Braley]

Tighter fairways, higher rough, smaller greens, more doglegs, bunkers pushed out to 315 from the tee....zzzzzz.

Exactly Mike,

Webb's so called solution tells me all he really cares is about neutering bombers and setting up courses to his strengths. At best his insights might qualify him as a special player consultant to the USGA Open committee...

[David Ober]

Random thoughts:

Does it matter that Webb didn't say anything about "better course design"? That's just the article's headline.


All respect to Jim Sullivan, but the idea that "nothing punishes wayward driving like great green design" is just nonsense. Consider OB. I'll take a 3 putt or an uphill pitch over stroke-and-distance anytime.


Call him braindead all you want, but Simpson is right on this. Small targets, short doglegs, and punishing rough reestablish a priority on accuracy. They make the course harder for hackers too, of course. But they also give the shorter hitting good player a chance to compete with the longer hitting good player.


John's points in this thread are interesting. Is it possible that the focus on enabling hackers with width, width, and more width has had the unintended consequence of making it damn near impossible for a skilled shorter hitter to compete with a skilled longer hitter? Have we been so busy trying not to bludgeon high handicappers that we've eradicated the Corey Pavins of the world from competing?

Wow. Yes, Yes, Yes. I've never though of it this way. I can give you a personal example:


I'm 52 and very, very short off the tee for a below scratch player. I carry driver 220 to 230 with total distance of 240 to 255 depending on conditions. Put me on a long course (7,200+) with "width," and I can still shoot around/below the course rating (75.) if the fairways are firm, but I get lapped by the guys hitting it long who can whale away at driver due to that very same width that is so en vogue.


But put me on a shorter, tighter course where I'm frequently hitting from a similar distance into many of the par 5's and the par 5's aren't all reachable due to doglegs, etc. and I can play well and shoot 67 or 68 when the best score of the day by anyone might be 63 or 64.


I really wish the Tour would host a few more events (than they already do) at "smaller," "funkier" courses that minimized the advantage that the truly long hitters have. We would absolutely see guys win tournaments who have never won on tour before. Guys who are world-beaters from 70 to 150 yards, but who are infrequently in those ranges off the tee on par 4's due to their insufficient length off the tee on monster courses.


At least I think that would happen. Would certainly like to see it.

[David Ober]

One thing I don't understand about this game is how you can become one of the best golfers in the world and not understand golf design.

I used to feel the same until I played with some folks that were very good players, but could care less about the course. I remember hosting a very good player from the Bay Area as a favor for a friend. The player told me he knew nothing about golf courses, design or maintenance. Asked me if I knew what kind of grass we were playing on. (It was Bermuda) Said he didn’t understand all the talk of strategy and design. Said golf is a boring game of hit it, then hit it on the green and then put it in the hole. Said it was like bowling.  Said he only played a few times a year as part of socializing for business. Said while it was a nice way to be outdoors, he would rather read a book.


Finished the round.  He was 4 under after missing several short putts. Should have been 8 under. I asked if he enjoyed it. He said I was good company. Nothing about the golf. I guess golf is a big tent.....

Golf IS a big tent. From my experience, though, guys like him are outliers -- and they don't play much golf once they start to feel that way about the game. His perspective is not unique among elite players, but it's in the minority, I believe.

[Matt_Cohn]

We shouldn’t roll back the ball because it’s fun to watch guys hit it far, but we should have narrower fairways and more doglegs so that guys won’t want to hit it as far. Got it. 

[Thomas Dai]

It doesn’t necessarily follow that because someone is exceptionally good at hitting a small ball with a stick they have much going on between the ears, the famous 5” golf course highlighted by Bobby Jones. And that’s before ‘vested interests’.
Atb

[A.G._Crockett]

Webb Simpson, fwiw, is a really bright guy who actually learned to play the game on a TINY golf course in Raleigh, NC, Carolina CC.  It's ancient, short, and tight.
And I'll mention this in re what Simpson had to say.  A number of years ago, there was discussion about raising the basket in basketball because height had become so important.  At the height of the debate (pun intended) Al McGuire pointed out that if you make the basket higher, you make height MORE important, not less, and that if you wanted to bring the little man back to the game, you should put the basket in a hole in the floor. 

It isn't a perfect analogy to golf and the issue of length, but it works.  Longer golf courses have done nothing but make length MORE important, not less; in the drive to make pros hit 6 irons instead of wedges into par 4's, we've lost sight of what sorts of things really make the pros work hard, and that's all Simpson was pointing out.  A lot of you are hung up on what the headline writer chose, rather than what Simpson actually said, which was measured and well-considered.

[Niall C]

Unusually I agree with AG. I didn't see anything ignorant or stupid in Simpsons comments, neither do I think his comments lack credibility because he's a quality golfer.


Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

I am find myself also agreeing with AG.


I would suggest part of the solution lies in maintenance practices. If they were to raise the cutting height on the fairways the ball will come to rest on a slope more often which is definitely more challenging for the pros than the standard flat lies. In addition the higher cut also reduces the ability to spin the ball and so make it less of a dartboard competition when hitting into the greens bringing the contours of the green complex more in to play.


Raising the height on the greens allows for more contour on the green and bigger swings over shorter distances which again is more challenging for the pros.


The whole tour conditioning of courses need a serious overhaul IMO.


Jon

[Lou_Duran]

Who would I rather listen to, JC's 15 handicapper or Webb Simpson?  My odds of gaining something useful out of it are a whole lot better with the latter.

About how to play golf?  Webb.


About golf course design?  Why would his opinion matter more than any other golfer?  If you were a developer, would you listen to your customers, or to a guy you had to pay just to show up?

Unlike Mike Clayton, I haven't been around very many elite golfers.   The few that I have hardly meet the descriptions of those he has been acquainted with.  Perhaps he is attributing the lack of interest or knowledge to a preference to discuss subjects other than the details of golf architecture in favor of things more meaningful to them, playing golf.  In that regard, they have much more in common with the average golfer than the core group which frequents these pages.  Some may take that as being ignorant or unaware of golf design.


From my limited experience, my take is that they (the elite players) are probably much further along the relevant part of the learning curve than JC's 15 handicapper, having discovered the "nuances" of most golf courses through their comparatively longer and more intense immersion in the game.  We seem to forget that great golfers were at one time beginners, hit some of the same shots that we do, and had to overcome similar obstacles.  And while I believe that the halo effect can have some serious consequences if unrecognized, the connection between playing and designing is close enough that I can glean some value from listening to the opinion of those who have come to play the game well.


With no offense to my fellow dinkers, if I was playing developer, unless I was in a rather unique area and was just warehousing the land, I'd not take a lot of their advice.  IMO, listening to customers is canon.  So, I would listen to most POVs, but weigh the advice based on the type of project I was building and the quality of the opinions.  I would never hire an architect based on his Tour resume, but on his record of delivering the type of courses which are successful and fit my objectives.  Being merely a "theorist" at this time, perhaps I am all wrong.


It would be interesting if some one would constitute a panel of this DG's brightest minds to select an architect, help in the design of the golf course, capitalize the project, and be responsible for the ongoing operations.  I know that there are guys on this site who could write the check.  Al Stanger, God rest his soul, did something similar with Mike Nuzzo's and Don Mahaffey's creation which is at least sympathetic to what appears to be this site's ethos.   Maybe the long discussed Carthage Club, the more recent Buck Club, or even El Boqueron should be given some life in a commercial setting (i.e. has to be financially sustainable).  I would love to see it as a green fee paying customer though not so much as an investor. 

[Ben Stephens]

Didn't the PGA Tour have a more exacting set up in the past compared with the European Tour with tighter fairways, lush roughs and firm greens. It seems to have gone in complete reverse for both tours. Possibly one indicator why the Europeans are winning more Ryder Cups nowadays

[JESII]

Ha...yes Ben! So long as nowadays began round about 1985...