[Matt_Cohn]

Do you consider it a weakness of a course if you hit driver on every hole (other than the par 3's)? And in particular if you can't imagine a circumstance where you would hit anything other than a driver on any of those holes?

[Ben Sims]

Initially I’d have said yes to your question.


But then I thought about a course I’ve played a lot in varying conditions and I can say with almost certainty that I’ve played 14 drivers before in a round there. And I’ve teed off with less than 10 drivers there before too. So…take that for what it’s worth. And that course is thought of as one of the top 50 courses in world in many circles.


Also, due to large faces and shaft technology, for many players the driver is more accurate laterally than their other long clubs in the bag. One thing to remember

[Thomas Dai]

Doesn’t the frequency of using a Driver also depend on the age, gender and standard of the player? Conditions and circumstances on the day too, eg the wind and weather etc.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Forty years ago when I was starting out, most good players thought the course was flawed if there was even a single par-4 or par-5 where you couldn't hit driver. 


Tom Weiskopf said pretty much the same thing to me, although he qualified it by saying that maybe it shouldn't always be the best option, but you should always have the option.  Of course, driving was the strength of Tom's game.

[Sean_A]

Do you consider it a weakness of a course if you hit driver on every hole (other than the par 3's)? And in particular if you can't imagine a circumstance where you would hit anything other than a driver on any of those holes?

Nope. Sometimes for guys like me driver may be needed more than 14 times and that's OK too.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

If more than 14 isn’t on the table one of your Par 3s isn’t long enough.

[Ben Stephens]

I hit 14 drivers at Royal Porthcawl last year on all the par 4s and 5s - some were 2/3 or 3/4 shots to keep the ball low and in play shortest was around 215 yds and longest over 300 yards 

[Jordan Beasley]

For me it is definitely a weakness. I think driver has become way too important in golf, and a truly great course has multiple par-4 and par-5 tee boxes where the player is truly agonizing over whether or not driver is a feasible option. Of course hitting driver on every hole is always an option, but for me it is hard for a course to crack my top tier if driver is a "comfortable" choice on every single (non par-3) hole.


Pasatiempo would be an example.  Excellent course, but I don't really have to think about club selection on any of 4's or 5's. It's driver all day long, and just try to get it to the correct side of the fairway.


I prefer Pebble Beach to Pasatiempo, not only for the setting but also because on multiple tee boxes (e.g. #3, #4, #6, #8) it forced more of an internal strategic debate on whether driver was too much club.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm curious about this one from the perspective of the better player.  Because the shorties off the tee, myself included, are likely hitting driver anyways.  Sadly even a double bogey for me these days is still "well at least I avoided worse" 

But for the good players, assuming the prevailing analysis on Strokes Gained is correct, that its basically always better to get more distance off the tee, doesn't that mean you hit driver anyways?  Even if it means you take on bunkers or rough?

And if that is true, then are folks advocating more OB and Water on the course to "enforce" laying back?

[John Blain]

Forty years ago when I was starting out, most good players thought the course was flawed if there was even a single par-4 or par-5 where you couldn't hit driver. 


Tom Weiskopf said pretty much the same thing to me, although he qualified it by saying that maybe it shouldn't always be the best option, but you should always have the option.  Of course, driving was the strength of Tom's game.

Actually the real strength of TW's game was his long iron play. He was incredible with the 1, 2 and 3 irons.

[Sean_A]

For me it is definitely a weakness. I think driver has become way too important in golf, and a truly great course has multiple par-4 and par-5 tee boxes where the player is truly agonizing over whether or not driver is a feasible option. Of course hitting driver on every hole is always an option, but for me it is hard for a course to crack my top tier if driver is a "comfortable" choice on every single (non par-3) hole.


Pasatiempo would be an example.  Excellent course, but I don't really have to think about club selection on any of 4's or 5's. It's driver all day long, and just try to get it to the correct side of the fairway.


I prefer Pebble Beach to Pasatiempo, not only for the setting but also because on multiple tee boxes (e.g. #3, #4, #6, #8) it forced more of an internal strategic debate on whether driver was too much club.

To me its more important that the shot be interesting. The club selection is very much a secondary issue. I like a few holes where hitting driver can create serious problems relative to a layup, but that is why I like good short 4s and long 3s. In other cases, if a layup is the obvious choice, then I am usually in the position of not being able to reach the green in 2/3. That's ok maybe once or twice, but I prefer that type of decision where I can still reach the green. This can quickly get out of hand. It's a completely different story if one has the luxury of length and can routinely choose to layup. I see this quite a bit these days with younger players. I will say there are always exceptions as I discovered at Pinehurst 2 playing tees just under 6000 yards. The tee game was highly engaging, but driver was always doable. I think this is exactly what is faced at the US Opens held there. But few courses are anywhere near the quality of #2.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

If you think about it, taking driver out of a long hitter’s hand is almost always because of a forced layup or a very narrow landing area, two-things this group - in a very generalised way - love cryin’ doon.


It’s just about never to do with angles in to a green (unless in tandem with a narrow landing area) or to “give the perfect approach distance”.


Part of the reason I think the occasional forced layup or narrow landing area isn’t a bad thing if done well. Need variety. Just has to be subtle and not too obvious (e.g. a forced layup at 220 yards on a 400 yard par-4 is almost always a terrible idea…. whereas a cross bunker that covers 60% of the fairway width at 285 yards on a 400 yard hole in firm and fast conditions provides much more food for thought)

[Mark Chaplin]

Do you consider it a weakness of a course if you hit driver on every hole (other than the par 3's)? And in particular if you can't imagine a circumstance where you would hit anything other than a driver on any of those holes?

We have an annual guest where I caddie who uses a driver for every tee shot, the 160 yard par 3s he tees it up, aims well left and opens the club face. I counted 21 driver shots once including 3 off the deck, he’s around an 18 handicap. Great guy and gets it around, just very unusual off the short hole tees.

[archie_struthers]

 


Great topic...I've met some really good players who think if they can't hit driver it was an architectural shortfall. Don't agree at all.


Not to say that hitting driver on certain holes is an option that brings risk and reward is a bad thing. Just to say that if you have a hole where you can't hit it because the fairway runs out is bad runs counter to good design. 

[Kyle Harris]

Every golf course in Florida built between 1983 and 2010 has a hole where you have to take less than Driver off the tee for the privelege of hitting a 150 yard shot over water to the green.

Not sure I understand *why* there should be an obligation to "take driver out of your hands" on one hole where the expectation is to have an approach shot to the green.

Perhaps the option should exist a few times if and only if you're driver is being wonky that day.

But really, at the end of it, this logic is no different from the Ben Hogan "putts should count as half a stroke" argument.

I stand by my 14+ opportunities comments.

[Matt Wharton]

What a fabulous topic, one I thought about a good deal in my younger playing days. I always enjoyed more those golf courses where driver wasn't "needed" 14 times. I enjoyed hitting 3-wood once or twice and if a hole set up perfectly for a 2-iron off the tee, I liked that even more. In my opinion that was a sign of a more well-rounded golf course versus one "requiring" 14 drivers.


Now that I am older I find myself choosing driver even on holes much shorter than those when I played an iron or 3-wood off the tee. I don't think about it in those terms anymore because it isn't often I lay up or lay back off a tee. But a golf course that requires thought and execution will always win out with me over one that simply has only one choice off the tee.


Cheers,

[Jim Sherma]

I am wondering how long a course would have to be to tempt current tour pros into playing 14 drivers.


In the days of Darwin's writing courses were praised based on having length that required playing drivers followed by brassies through the green. I think consistent length is still a necessary yet not sufficient marker of meaningful challenge. Having holes that set up better for a shorter club due to tightness or movement is fine. Holes that take the driver out of your hand because of a complete crossing hazard should be architecturally well worth the constraint. Sadly, many are not. 


Relative length has always been rewarded in golf. Adding challenge back into driving would be a good thing if there was a way to reduce MOI and add some spin back to the ball. I am not holding my breath waiting for it though. Dispersion patterns off of the modern driver/ball are much tighter than they used to be. The hard duck/snap hook and the heal-slice are almost extinct for good ball strikers. Generally, there are rarely any reason to not hit driver other than if there is risk of hitting it too far.


No one says we have to play modern equipment however. I play persimmon and blades a few weeks out of the year and find that game to be much more enjoyable. If I had a competitive group to play that equipment with I would play it exclusively. The scale of the game makes more sense, the strategy is potentially more interesting, and the walk is more enjoyable (6000-6400 is my sweet spot instead of 6400-7000).

[jeffwarne]

I know a pretty good one about to open up that's likely to be 15....

[Will Lozier]

I hit driver off the tee on 14 holes at Cypress Point on my first play choosing to hit 3-wood on 8 which is the right play IMO...had to hit full blooded driver off 16 into a stiff breeze and 17 as well...it was NOT wise to try to hit a butter cut with the driver on 18. 


Still, CPC would offer opportunities to hit driver on 14 holes in certain conditions off the back tees for a shorter hitter. For a bomber, maybe 10 drivers? Not a weakness.


Cheers

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()