229 yd par 4 at Olympic today!

[Tim Leahy]

They have pushed up the tee to 229 yds at #7 today to encourage the women to go for it. Has anyone heard of another par 4 in a women's major playing that short in the last 20 years? It is uphill but I wonder how many will hit the green in 1 and wonder what the scoring avg will be on the hole compared to yesterday.

[Tom_Doak]

It's not much different than playing a hole for the men at 280-290 yards, which they've done several times, no?

[Tim Passalacqua]

It's not much different than playing a hole for the men at 280-290 yards, which they've done several times, no?

In 2012, the 7th played 256, 275, 268, and 264.  I remember my eyes almost popped out of my head when I saw 256.  A lot of 3 woods.......just like the ladies are hitting today.

[Pete_Pittock]

And a par 3 at 99 yards.

[Tim Martin]

At that distance they are forcing the player to take a crack at the green rather than enticing them.

[David_Tepper]

I am a little surprised with how short the course has been set up.

[Tim Passalacqua]

I am a little surprised with how short the course has been set up.

No kidding.  It seems like they are wedging it into a lot of holes.  Par 3’s seem short.  With that said, the course is playing beautiful and the sloping fairways are shining.  Watching the players work their tee shots with the correct ball flight has been pretty amazing.  They are working it into the slope to keep it in the fairway or working it with the slope (slinging that fade on 10) to pick up the extra roll.  Can’t wait until tomorrow.

[Matthew Rose]

My recollection is that Oakmont's 17th was about that distance one day the year that Paula Creamer won.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I am a little surprised with how short the course has been set up.

In relationship to the 2012 men's US Open I don't believe it's playing any shorter this week.


In 2012 the course averaged 7,037 yards. The women's this year have played at an average of 6,361. 9.6% shorter in 2021 vs 2012.


When you compare the average driving distances between the two tours, 287.3 in 2012 vs. 258.2 in 2021, the women are 10.1% shorter.


While those two stats don't tell the whole story, it does suggest that length wise the USGA has done a good job at equalizing the course between the men and women.


If the men are hitting wedges and short irons into greens the response is about how far players today hit the ball, but when women have short irons and wedges into greens the course is short?

[Matt_Cohn]

If the men are hitting wedges and short irons into greens the response is about how far players today hit the ball, but when women have short irons and wedges into greens the course is short?

Could be. Because the ability to set it up longer for the women was there, but for the men it was not.

[David_Tepper]

Ben H. -

Thanks for the data. I was offering an observation, not passing judgement.

Today the tee on #6 was moved back one tee box and the pin is way back right on the green. The run-off areas behind and back right of the green were very much in play today.

I saw the 3-some of Olson, Jutanugarn and Lucy Li play the hole this morning. All 3 of them missed the fairway and missed the green. All 3 of them made 5.

I will be interested to see today's stroke average for the hole.

DT

[Ben Hollerbach]

If the men are hitting wedges and short irons into greens the response is about how far players today hit the ball, but when women have short irons and wedges into greens the course is short?

Could be. Because the ability to set it up longer for the women was there, but for the men it was not.

in 2012, Olympic could top out at 7,170 yards, but it never did.



I lost count of how many times I heard during the coverage of the most recent PGA Championship that Kiawah was the longest course in major championship history at 7,876 yards. But yet the longest the course ever played was 7,700 yards. On Sunday the course played 7,557 yards, 319 yards shorter than its potential.


Just because a course can or can't be made longer does not mean it needs to be made longer or is at the appropriate length. The 18th at Olympic played just 314 yards today and averaged 0.21 strokes over par. I'd say regardless of what club they were hitting in the hole, the setup was near perfect.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben H. -

Thanks for the data. I was offering an observation, not passing judgement.

Today the tee on #6 was moved back one tee box and the pin is way back right on the green. The run-off areas behind and back right of the green were very much in play today.

I saw the 3-some of Olson, Jutanugarn and Lucy Li play the hole this morning. All 3 of them missed the fairway and missed the green. All 3 of them made 5.

I will be interested to see today's stroke average for the hole.

DT

Beth Ann Nichols wrote a great article back in March for GolfWeek about this subject.


Let them score: How misguided course setups are holding back women’s golf


I often looked at how the disparity in distance has impacted the PGA tour when comparing different eras, trying to understand how much shorter the modern course plays vs. what was played 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but never applied the same logic to men vs. women. Even though it's pretty obvious when watching the LPGA vs PGA I failed to connect the dots until reading Beth's article.


It does make a lot of sense, if your goal was to provide the same level of entertainment within your event, the course needs to be set up to equalize the approach shots. I believe the USGA did a great job with that this week.

[Tony Ristola]

Ben H. -

Thanks for the data. I was offering an observation, not passing judgement.

Today the tee on #6 was moved back one tee box and the pin is way back right on the green. The run-off areas behind and back right of the green were very much in play today.

I saw the 3-some of Olson, Jutanugarn and Lucy Li play the hole this morning. All 3 of them missed the fairway and missed the green. All 3 of them made 5.

I will be interested to see today's stroke average for the hole.

DT

Beth Ann Nichols wrote a great article back in March for GolfWeek about this subject.


Let them score: How misguided course setups are holding back women’s golf


I often looked at how the disparity in distance has impacted the PGA tour when comparing different eras, trying to understand how much shorter the modern course plays vs. what was played 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but never applied the same logic to men vs. women. Even though it's pretty obvious when watching the LPGA vs PGA I failed to connect the dots until reading Beth's article.


It does make a lot of sense, if your goal was to provide the same level of entertainment within your event, the course needs to be set up to equalize the approach shots. I believe the USGA did a great job with that this week.

I understand the logic, but believe it is flawed.


They're professionals. The problem isn't that 3-shot holes are 3-shot holes for most of the women's field... it's that men's professional golf has been ruined by technology.


The majority of men on Tour should not be getting home in 2-shots on par-5's. And certainly not with mid-irons. That's silly. Old Tom Morris would vomit all the way down the fairway seeing Men's professional golf today.


About 35-years ago, the USGA and R&A instituted a "One-Ball Rule"... now obsolete due to the urethane ball replacing the wound ball. That rule was implemented in the early 80's because the pro's were switching to hard 2-piece balls (Pinnacles, Top-Flites, etc) in order to reach, or get around the greens of 5-s in two... with fairway woods.


Remember the day when Curtis Strange was charging back at the Masters after an opening round of 80? He was hitting fairway woods into 13 (and failing to reach the green). Chip Beck... in contention but in need of birdies... laid-up because he didn't think he could get home with a fairway wood after a good drive. Oh...the misery of making gut wrenching choices and having to hit career best shots under pressure with long sticks!

If I were king for a day, I would roll back the ball to 1981 distances, I'd reduce the number of clubs to 9, irons wouldn't have grooves (so the rough could be light and still be difficult to control the ball)*, and the maximum wood head size would be about 275cc. Then you would be able to tell who the ball-strikers are... and you'd find a new generation of Trevino's or Pavin's.


*If you hit it in the fairway, you'll be able to generate ample spin.


In Europe though, for the general membership, the length of most women's courses are far too long. I did a study of a region 25-years ago, and the women were playing courses that were US Open length. With the average age of women golfers being about 50, and a the average 21-year old female having the strength of a 65-year old man... these courses couldn't be much fun.


As an aside. The LPGA long driver in that article you linked to averaged 6-yards less than the 1981 PGA Tour long driver Dan Pohl. I believe he hit it 274.1 that year. In that era, a 440-yard par-4 was a challenging hole; a drive and a medium-long to long-iron. Calvin Peete likely hit 4-wood into the green. Today... it's a drive and wedge or 9-iron. That to me shows the women's game is about right with their course setups.


The problem really isn't how the courses are set up for the women. They're professionals, playing the professional game. The problem is men's professional golf is a broken... ruined... kaput.

[jeffwarne]

Ben H. -

Thanks for the data. I was offering an observation, not passing judgement.

Today the tee on #6 was moved back one tee box and the pin is way back right on the green. The run-off areas behind and back right of the green were very much in play today.

I saw the 3-some of Olson, Jutanugarn and Lucy Li play the hole this morning. All 3 of them missed the fairway and missed the green. All 3 of them made 5.

I will be interested to see today's stroke average for the hole.

DT

Beth Ann Nichols wrote a great article back in March for GolfWeek about this subject.


Let them score: How misguided course setups are holding back women’s golf


I often looked at how the disparity in distance has impacted the PGA tour when comparing different eras, trying to understand how much shorter the modern course plays vs. what was played 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but never applied the same logic to men vs. women. Even though it's pretty obvious when watching the LPGA vs PGA I failed to connect the dots until reading Beth's article.


It does make a lot of sense, if your goal was to provide the same level of entertainment within your event, the course needs to be set up to equalize the approach shots. I believe the USGA did a great job with that this week.

I understand the logic, but believe it is flawed.


They're professionals. The problem isn't that 3-shot holes are 3-shot holes for most of the women's field... it's that men's professional golf has been ruined by technology.


The majority of men on Tour should not be getting home in 2-shots on par-5's. And certainly not with mid-irons. That's silly. Old Tom Morris would vomit all the way down the fairway seeing Men's professional golf today.


About 35-years ago, the USGA and R&A instituted a "One-Ball Rule"... now obsolete due to the urethane ball replacing the wound ball. That rule was implemented in the early 80's because the pro's were switching to hard 2-piece balls (Pinnacles, Top-Flites, etc) in order to reach, or get around the greens of 5-s in two... with fairway woods.


Remember the day when Curtis Strange was charging back at the Masters after an opening round of 80? He was hitting fairway woods into 13 (and failing to reach the green). Chip Beck... in contention but in need of birdies... laid-up because he didn't think he could get home with a fairway wood after a good drive. Oh...the misery of making gut wrenching choices and having to hit career best shots under pressure with long sticks!

If I were king for a day, I would roll back the ball to 1981 distances, I'd reduce the number of clubs to 9, irons wouldn't have grooves (so the rough could be light and still be difficult to control the ball)*, and the maximum wood head size would be about 275cc. Then you would be able to tell who the ball-strikers are... and you'd find a new generation of Trevino's or Pavin's.


*If you hit it in the fairway, you'll be able to generate ample spin.


In Europe though, for the general membership, the length of most women's courses are far too long. I did a study of a region 25-years ago, and the women were playing courses that were US Open length. With the average age of women golfers being about 50, and a the average 21-year old female having the strength of a 65-year old man... these courses couldn't be much fun.


As an aside. The LPGA long driver in that article you linked to averaged 6-yards less than the 1981 PGA Tour long driver Dan Pohl. I believe he hit it 274.1 that year. In that era, a 440-yard par-4 was a challenging hole; a drive and a medium-long to long-iron. Calvin Peete likely hit 4-wood into the green. Today... it's a drive and wedge or 9-iron. That to me shows the women's game is about right with their course setups.


The problem really isn't how the courses are set up for the women. They're professionals, playing the professional game. The problem is men's professional golf is a broken... ruined... kaput.

agree with much of this.
I'm not sure it's "broken", it's just far less interesting to watch for people of similar minds as you and I(are we a minority? I don't know-I thnk the "Brooksy" crowd would disagree with us)
The other issue I have is it creates scale awfulness for championships like Kiawah, Erin Hills, Chambers Bay etc. where the walk dictates a longer slop, regardless of tees played.
Women and Senior Tours have the opportunity to still play the great compact classic courses-sometimes they actually take advantage of it and those weeks really shine, though the Seniors are usually playing some silly vapid housing course, and too often play a major at that awful Benton Harbour-pity.

[Matthew Rose]

I learned in this article that the Thornberry Creek event is off the schedule, which is kinda ironic because that's where somebody went 31 under par a couple years ago.

On a personal note, I'm sad to see it go as I once lived on the course and played it dozens of times over three or four summers. Nothing will convince you that these ladies are good players more than watching one of them destroy what was once your home track.

 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Tony,


You'd be completely correct IF the various tours primary goal was to conduct the most through examination of a players ability and to put on the highest level of competition possible.


But that's simply not the case


The world's tours are entertainment products, who's goal is to put on the most enjoyable spectacles for their viewers. While the R&A and USGA have hinted at making an adjustment to the game the PGA Tour has not joined their efforts. The tour knows that their formula of long drives and birdies sells and they don't want to rock the boat.


From a public perception, women players are viewed as inferior to their male counterparts and that is in part because of the lack of birdies. That hurts their viewership and public interest. While the LPGA may do a better job of conducting pure competitions, it's hurting their spectator potential.

[Tony Ristola]

Tony,


You'd be completely correct IF the various tours primary goal was to conduct the most through examination of a players ability and to put on the highest level of competition possible.


But that's simply not the case


The world's tours are entertainment products, who's goal is to put on the most enjoyable spectacles for their viewers. While the R&A and USGA have hinted at making an adjustment to the game the PGA Tour has not joined their efforts. The tour knows that their formula of long drives and birdies sells and they don't want to rock the boat.


From a public perception, women players are viewed as inferior to their male counterparts and that is in part because of the lack of birdies. That hurts their viewership and public interest. While the LPGA may do a better job of conducting pure competitions, it's hurting their spectator potential.

Yes they're there for entertainment. But there is more entertainment in blood letting than long drive and gouge contests. When everyone is a long bomber... it's just another day watching the same circus.
 
It's like people say hockey needs more scoring. Nope. It needs great battles, and low scoring battles are entertaining. Same with golf. When every course is a drive and wedge affair... bomb and gouge... it's boring. Like basketball. Lot's of scoring there. (They'd be wise to raise the hoop a foot... fewer dunks, more team ball... then I may watch again... after a 20-year absence).


In around 2003, the PGA Tour hinted at action. Clearly a head fake. Or, perhaps fear of getting sued by manufacturers. After all, what happens when every ball is a distance and performance ball? The best ball on the market becomes a commodity... a 50-cent to a dollar investment. The manufacturers would lose bajillions.


Follow the money. And by following it, you'll discover why professional golf has become a joke.


Why the governing bodies have failed golf is a bit of a mystery. It is their primary job... defending and protecting the integrity of the game. Have they no cojones? Obviously not.


The governing bodies talk about sustainability out of one side of their mouths, while doing nothing about what can make the game more sustainable and preserving great architecture... shorter courses via controlling the pellet.


As for the women, their course setups are fine. It's the men's setups that are jokes. If women want to turn their game into a joke too... well... go right ahead ladies.


The LPGA might be wise to improve their marketing... y'know... go right at the men and the weekly joke. An ad campaign... when you want to see professionals hit long irons again into par-4's and woods into par-5's as the game was meant to be played... tune in to the LPGA Tour.


Go right for the jugular. Make a mockery of men's professional golf... because it deserves it.

[JohnVDB]

I worked as a rules official on the Futures Tour (now the Symmetra Tour) in 2000 and 2001. It was not owned/run by the LPGA at the time.


At one tournament the winning score was something like -10 for 54 holes.  It was one of the most interesting tournaments of the year.  We got told by the tour office that we had obviously setup the course too easy and to toughen things up in the future.  It’s probably good that I wasn’t in charge or in a fit of malicious compliance I might have made it almost unplayable the next week (not really, but ….).


I think things have changed a lot out there, but as Beth Ann Nichols article stated, there could be more done to generate interest.

[Brad Lawrence]

Tony,


You'd be completely correct IF the various tours primary goal was to conduct the most through examination of a players ability and to put on the highest level of competition possible.
[size=78%]  [/size]


But that's simply not the case


The world's tours are entertainment products, who's goal is to put on the most enjoyable spectacles for their viewers. While the R&A and USGA have hinted at making an adjustment to the game the PGA Tour has not joined their efforts. The tour knows that their formula of long drives and birdies sells and they don't want to rock the boat.


From a public perception, women players are viewed as inferior to their male counterparts and that is in part because of the lack of birdies. That hurts their viewership and public interest. While the LPGA may do a better job of conducting pure competitions, it's hurting their spectator potential.

The LPGA struggles with the same thing all female sports struggles with- they aren’t as good as the men.  While I think a lot of golf fans would be shocked at how good they really are, they tend to have vanilla games. Along with power, they don’t have the variety of shots,  especially around the greens.  Easier set ups and more birdies doesn’t repair [/size][size=78%]that.[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]As far as the men’s tours, what changes would you suggest to provide a more thorough examination? The courses they play are for the most part extremely difficult.  At that level, it takes an extremely difficult golf course to keep the winning score at only 20 under.  [/size]