Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?

[Rob Marshall]

I'm not knocking Bryson(other than his pace)


But "feeling the green" by straddling your line, with your feet should be illegal.
It(can) slow the game and there is no question that there is additional traffic on the green from all this straddling.
"Reading" the green is an art-feeling it? other than in your address stance, should not be legal IMHO but that's of course simply an opinion.
Drives me crazy when I see people do it all around (and often on)my line and future lines of later players.
I'm sure there's a good defense, but why not just then let me just touch my line with my hand o feel it-probably faster.


So forearm anchoring should be illegal, but straddling your line OK?


I will agree though since it's legal, and the game has gone glacial-with no one monitoring actual pace unless group is out of position, that it's all good-I just don't like it.
hard to get out of position when the group in front is going through the same nonsense.

Aimpoint doesn't teach you to stradle the line. You stand on the low side.


Not sure what the difference is between doing that and looking at the putt from 4 different angles as far as legality and stepping on future lines. I stopped doing aimpoint after about a month. I spend about 10 seconds reading a putt now and go. I also only look at if from behind the ball.

[Kalen Braley]

As putting has always been the best part of my game, the best technique or visual that works for me is imagining a large bucket of water is dropped on the green from above and visualizing how it would drain...

This aimpoint thing seems like another fad like the plumb bob, holding fingers out, or doing the Villegas Spider-man stance.

[Jeff Schley]

My first green book was probably 1995. They were hand-drawn, but many were of excellent detail. Certainly they were not done using lasers, if that's what you are referring to.


But you'd have to see a new one that conforms to the rules to understand what I'm talking about. They are definitely helpful in terms of overall slope, but they do not really help you make a "birdie length" putt much. They can help you avoid 3-putting, and they can definitely help you when chipping/pitching.


Another thing to consider that most non-tournament players don't know is that the "Aimpoint" system has REALLY helped guys putt better. And I'm not talking about the "stick your finger out" thing that Adam Scott and some others do, I'm just talking about the "spread your feet and feel the green" part of it. It's amazing how much that can tell you about a green's slope. I started using it as part of a complete putting revamp about two years ago, and it's been a game-changer for me (and many pros).

First time I recall a laser book, I had a friend who played the gateway tour and nationwide etc. and I'm sure Pat Burke remembers "the fuk" who mapped out the course for the upcoming week and made yardage books for the entire field if they paid the modest price. Next week same thing.  Pat you remember this?  Late 90's.

[Kalen Braley]

One of the most impressive things about the skill of the TOUR pro happened on the greens. Some of their putts broke 15 feet and they read most of them impeccably. They just do everything better.

They didn't read the greens.  They read the book that tells them how much break to expect.

I think Tom is spot on here.  It takes a long time and multiple plays to really learn greens, and when you have a very detailed topo map down to the foot, you get a massive jump on the learning curve, especially on greens with putts that appear to break up hill.

[David Ober]

My first green book was probably 1995. They were hand-drawn, but many were of excellent detail. Certainly they were not done using lasers, if that's what you are referring to.


But you'd have to see a new one that conforms to the rules to understand what I'm talking about. They are definitely helpful in terms of overall slope, but they do not really help you make a "birdie length" putt much. They can help you avoid 3-putting, and they can definitely help you when chipping/pitching.


Another thing to consider that most non-tournament players don't know is that the "Aimpoint" system has REALLY helped guys putt better. And I'm not talking about the "stick your finger out" thing that Adam Scott and some others do, I'm just talking about the "spread your feet and feel the green" part of it. It's amazing how much that can tell you about a green's slope. I started using it as part of a complete putting revamp about two years ago, and it's been a game-changer for me (and many pros).

First time I recall a laser book, I had a friend who played the gateway tour and nationwide etc. and I'm sure Pat Burke remembers "the fuk" who mapped out the course for the upcoming week and made yardage books for the entire field if they paid the modest price. Next week same thing.  Pat you remember this?  Late 90's.

There were several of those guys, nationwide. Kenny(?) "The Wizard" Wertzberger(?) made good books back in the day.

[John Kirk]

I remember back in the 1980s when the top 10 driving distance leaders had little or even negative correlation with overall golfing success.  It's a big change.

Was that really the case in the past?  Wasn't Nicklaus a very long hitter in his day?  It is going back farther than 1980 but he is a quote from a story on Nicklaus winning the 1963 PGA Championship in very hot conditions in Dallas.  It sounds very similar to Bryson, other than the heat:

Helped by the fact that he was hitting a warm ball through the thin Texas air, Jack was getting tremendous distance. He rarely had to take anything out of his golf bag but his driver, wedge, putter and towel. (He had set a PGA record on Wednesday when he won the driving contest with a smasher of 341 yards.) Meanwhile, just about everybody else, including Hart and Mayfield, was wilting in the heat like a yellow rose of somewhere.

Hi Wayne,

Sorry for the slow response.  I'm busy these days, and perhaps too busy to take the time and support my claim that driving distance wasn't correlated with overall success.  Here's a nice table that shows the yearly leaders back to 1980:


https://www.pga.com/archive/how-driving-distance-has-changed-over-past-40-years-pga-tour

Some of them are quite successful, like John Daly and Bubba Watson.  Others are not.

I do believe driving distance correlates more closely with success today, than it did 30-40 years ago.  Just an opinion at this point.  Another way to fix the problem is to adjust the ball so it spins more.  Balls just don't curve as much as they used to.

[Wayne_Kozun]

It would be interesting to see the top 10 in distance each year and how many times they have won, especially major wins.  Of the guys from the 80s the only major champ is DLIII.  Bean was close several to winning several majors and had a very good career with 11 wins.  Since the arrival of JD he dominated the list and we have more major champs that are also the longest driver - mainly JD and Bubba.


The most striking thing from that list is how far Hank Kuehne hit the ball.  His distance of 321.4 from 2003 is still the longest on an absolute basis and was also an astounding 35 yards higher than the average.

[B.Ross]

a proper shot clock on the tour would be a real start. get these guys playing 3somes in 4 hours during the week, 2somes in even less on the weekend.


another thought, outlaw green books and yardage books, but give the caddies lasers, but keep the shot clocks. make pros and their caddies utilize practice rounds to read the course and MEMORIZE distances to carry bunkers etc. would create a real mental aspect of golf.


it'd be great if the tour had the testicular fortitude to use their year long schedule to try this stuff even once at a tournament. just to see what happens.

[Dave Doxey]

Why does anything need to change?   All the players played the same course using the same rules.  DeChambeau just did it better last weekend.

[David Ober]

a proper shot clock on the tour would be a real start. get these guys playing 3somes in 4 hours during the week, 2somes in even less on the weekend.


another thought, outlaw green books and yardage books, but give the caddies lasers, but keep the shot clocks. make pros and their caddies utilize practice rounds to read the course and MEMORIZE distances to carry bunkers etc. would create a real mental aspect of golf.


it'd be great if the tour had the testicular fortitude to use their year long schedule to try this stuff even once at a tournament. just to see what happens.

Yep. Let the caddies use lasers, for crying out loud. Definitely helps with pace of play at that level. And I agree. Start the season off with three or four straight tournaments where the clock is used. If they can use lasers, that will really help with the "I'm in the other fairway and have no idea how far to hit it so my caddie has to walk it off" BS that we see sometimes. Just laser the damn thing and hit the shot. They can also use the hand held apps that use the GPS yardages so even if you don't have line of sight, you can tell how far you are for a lay-up or a blind shot.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff, the initial books a few years ago had an arrow and grade number for each square yard of the green...seriously, if you had a 30 footer, you went through at least 10 squares that these guys were trying to add up...they took forever.


The USGA did in fact eliminate that level of detail to be sold. The current books have good detail about direction and severity of slope and the player IS allowed to add as much detail as they want based on their own effort. I wouldn't be surprised if BD is spending a good deal of time with a digital level during practice days because he sure does go to the book a lot.


On this week...he was simply better than everyone else. His drives were closer to his target than anyone and he made every putt.

The book I saw was done for the Women's Open at Sebonack, and it was like the older ones in your first paragraph.  I didn't like seeing that all the players knew the greens better than I did!


Glad to hear they have been regulated / scaled back but when they have all been mapped and there exists a computer program that could tell you the exact line for any putt with the green at any speed, it is hard to fool anyone.


The margin for error on a 30 foot double breaker is pretty small, but having a book to double check how your six to ten footer will break is a huge advantage psychologically.  And the little bit I watched, it was clear that Bryson double checked everything longer than a tap in.


He was clearly the best player this week and I have no problem with the score he shot - indeed I am arguing that the setup should be less severe to let more guys into contention.  Winged Foot is a proven venue and if it's not good enough anymore then we all might as well give up.  But it seems ridiculous to go to all the trouble to set the place up and then hand everyone a cheat sheet - and no, Bob Jones and Hale Irwin didn't have a lasered green book.

[Ian Mackenzie]

I also thnk Bryson sank a disproportionate % of under 10' putts over 4 days...rather successfully...as in 90 effing % of them.


If he had missed those over the last two days, lile many others did, perhaps the threads would be a bit different.

[Thad Layton]

Provocative thread title...Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where anyone has addressed the influence that the restoration may have had on scoring. First of all, I think the restovation was brilliant...all of the new pinnable areas and open approaches have to increase the enjoyment factor for the WF membership which should be the goal of any successful project.
But one question I grapple with is this: can you serve 2 disparate needs with one deed? Can you increase the variety, enjoyment, and recovery options for the members while having those very same enhancements play like a US Open (at least in the traditional sense of an over par winning score)?
IMO, the widening and firming up of the approaches reduced the premium of hitting fairways and mitigated the effects of the wind. As long as you were coming in from the proper angle from the rough the bombers could just wedge it out toward the green and have it trundle on...if they missed short, the approaches were so tight, it was as good as being on the green. BD made 2 unlikely birdies (#'s 4 & 11 I think) from the rough on Sunday in this manner. With single file approaches, the previous version of WF required a mostly aerial approach w/spin- an almost impossible task from thick rough. If putting the course back to it's pre-2016 form is the price of having a "traditional" US Open, count me out.

[Forrest Richardson]

There are loads of "things" in today's modern golf world that we should probably be addressing...Tom D's comment on laser green booklets is one. I think reading the greens in real time, in the real world — and with a caddie — is probably a decent tradition. Whether printed or electronic, detailed analysis of the surface seems a bit much.

As for the premise question of the thread: No, I do not think the win will change what we do (golf architecture). If anything, it might get us all to focus on the true equalizers in golf, which are shots, holes and approaches under 150± yards, which is something that nearly anyone who plays the game can identify with, negotiate and compete amongst. So, I will welcome that change...and leave the 8,000 yard layouts to the very few who grace the sport and need that type of venue.

[David Ober]

There are loads of "things" in today's modern golf world that we should probably be addressing...Tom D's comment on laser green booklets is one. I think reading the greens in real time, in the real world — and with a caddie — is probably a decent tradition. Whether printed or electronic, detailed analysis of the surface seems a bit much.

As for the premise question of the thread: No, I do not think the win will change what we do (golf architecture). If anything, it might get us all to focus on the true equalizers in golf, which are shots, holes and approaches under 150± yards, which is something that nearly anyone who plays the game can identify with, negotiate and compete amongst. So, I will welcome that change...and leave the 8,000 yard layouts to the very few who grace the sport and need that type of venue.

Amen. As long as we remember that no course can please everyone, that should free you all up to create courses that are fun to play for a wide variety of players. And I love what you say about that ~150 yard thing. Completely agree with that.

[Brad Wilbur]

Another way to make a golfer’s viewpoint of driving the ball a greater distance would be to change the graduated rough length concept. Keep longer par 4 and par 5 rough at first cut length up to a certain yardage (for instance 280 yards from the tee).  From 280-300 yards use second cut rough throughout that swath.  Over 300 yards use “I hope I can find my ball” length rough.  It would seem that procedure wouldn’t especially harm the club player, unless his second shot couldn’t clear however far the limit for the most demanding rough was placed. 

[David Ober]

Another way to make a golfer’s viewpoint of driving the ball a greater distance would be to change the graduated rough length concept. Keep longer par 4 and par 5 rough at first cut length up to a certain yardage (for instance 280 yards from the tee).  From 280-300 yards use second cut rough throughout that swath.  Over 300 yards use “I hope I can find my ball” length rough.  It would seem that procedure wouldn’t especially harm the club player, unless his second shot couldn’t clear however far the limit for the most demanding rough was placed.

So punish the guy MORE who misses the fairway by two yards if he is a longer hitter than the other guy.


Why, exactly?

[William_G]

from a design standpoint, the closer you get to the green the more severe the penalty


the farther you hit the tee the more the consequences


if your are defending the green, then you don't leave the front of every green open for a run up despite a false front


if you want want bomb and gouge, then leave it WFW the same, with catcher's gloves greens


turtleback greens anyone?

[V. Kmetz]

I had the good fortune to play WFW on Monday, all the Sunday pins and the maniacs I was with actually played it from farther than Sunday's round... 7435 (for another post later in the week).  But here's something that ought to liven up this debate about Green Reading Books...level of detail.





I have caddied and played for almost 40 years, on the WF courses 200-250x... this is the most insane thing I have ever seen in terms of datafying/laboratorizing the greens at WF.  The bottom of the T is the "plain ol" Yardage book, with its "simple" 5 yard grid and directional arrows...very much like the book from the 2006 Open in most respects.  The horizontal crown of the T is the Green Reading Book, which has four representations of EACH green...reading left to right...color coded arrows, colored topo with % slope, just % slope with no color and finally four color topo... for each green.


And I'm not saying they aren't used to good effect by the Tour players and caddies, but I really, really think the best 50 or 60 of the vet WF caddies do just as well for Anderson level players, the many scratch/near scratch players at WF and even the outing slashers by just congealing all this data into "right edge, soft" or "pretend the hole is here..." 


But this book (which IS in sight-challenged font) is just the craziest thing I've ever seen.

[Sean_A]

Another way to make a golfer’s viewpoint of driving the ball a greater distance would be to change the graduated rough length concept. Keep longer par 4 and par 5 rough at first cut length up to a certain yardage (for instance 280 yards from the tee).  From 280-300 yards use second cut rough throughout that swath.  Over 300 yards use “I hope I can find my ball” length rough.  It would seem that procedure wouldn’t especially harm the club player, unless his second shot couldn’t clear however far the limit for the most demanding rough was placed.

You don't need to graduate the rough, just increase the width of the fairway. For championship golf I see no issue with narrower fairways in the 320+ (typing this number looks ludicrous 😞) range. Not all the time, but enough to be noticed. What is the problem making longer shots be more accurate? This is an age old concept closely associated with championship golf.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

"Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?"
No need to change architecture.
Just rollback equipment and cut all the grass nice-n-short.
atb

[Niall C]

David

Better still, let's just accept these guys are very very good and let them score well rather than trying to tweak the course/set up in order to produce a particular score. As I said on another thread, DeChambeu's tactic was no different than that used by other big hitters through the ages.

Niall

[Brock Lynch]

... and cut all the grass nice-n-short.
atb

Watching this weekend it did occur to me that the rough kept wayward drives from getting outside the areas where a player could bounce the ball onto the green. It would be very interesting to see how WFW would play without rough.

[William_G]

design could incorporate thicker rough the farther you drive the ball

[jeffwarne]

Bryson averaging 325 during the uS Open(the longest by a winner in history) shouldn't change architecture.
Nor should hard work, innovation and physical cnditioning be a reason for a "Brsyon" rollback.



The fact that he fnished SEVENTH in driving distance for the week?
and the fact that FIFTY -FIVE of the 61 players who made the cut AVERAGED over 301 yards this week shouldn't change architecture.


The change(if any is needed) is far simpler.


BUT IT WILL and already has changed architecture.
You're an amateur developer and you decide (naively) to build a course that can host "The US Open" as many do.
Ypu think that course is going to be 6800 yards?
Even on these pages I read about "little" 9 hole courses which were plenty long at the time they were developed, and many comments "boutique" about sub 7000 yard courses such as Merion(edit-$18 miilion later-it's worthy again) or references to Palmetto or Eastward Ho being"tough littel courses' etc. When these courses were built they were pretty long and damn sure didn't want to be referred to as "little"
Sure they "hold their own" due to interesting greens etc. and because most of us just aren't that good,
but make no mistake,


They are NOT the courses the architects originally intended, no matter how many experts have whipped out old pictures and plans etc.




I played a wonderful MET area course in an Senior event 2 weeks ago with another area senior, who is a good ,longdriver.
There were 7-10 holes I felt qt was necessary to hit driver(260-275) on the 6700 yard layout.
He hit driving iron every tee shot-saw no need to ever pull the driver, despite his ability with the club.-shot 70 in windy cool weather, hit two fives in two.






WF was close however, and I found it quite entertaining-and enjoyed that the players felt comfortable enough to hit drivers and attempt to work/launch it around corners. Not sure other courses have the need, the land, or the budget to do this and hence these former  classics become "little gems"
See Apawamis, Inwood, St George's,Engineers, The Creek.


Final thought, we used to hear "get in the bunker"
Now ith the elite strong bombers they really don't care as much.as their strength and proximity to the green allows recovery from rough.
Smaller, deeper bunkers with real lips could change this, and they would at least be be saying "get in the rough"
IT's very prevalant in the UK, perhaps too much the last few years (there are more pot bunkers than ever)for my weak game, but it would make the elite players think about the consequences.


I still believe if they do CHANGE the ball, guys like Bryson, who carry it far and have high ball speed, will not be harmed (relatively)and we could see them play more of the classics as designed, on an appropriate scale-but length will and has always been-a deserved advantage.


But make no mistake, it was great to see Winged Foot(especially the greens that I thought were presented perfectly)and it was a great win to watch.