Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mark_Fine on July 09, 2020, 08:36:34 AM
-
Everything circles around. Maybe trees and narrower courses are the answer. Can you imagine what Bryson and ten more like him would do to a wide open Tom Doak Course! It would be called “the chip and putt classic” :'(
Maybe Harbour Town has the solution. It requires shaped golf shots and trajectory control not just 350+ yard bombs.
Sad to say I am only half joking 🙃
-
Wrong!
Turn off the water and build greens that make it matter...
-
Wrong!
Turn off the water and build greens that make it matter...
Where do you suggest errant drives eventually stop? Isn't under a tree the best option?
-
Nope...in a mediocre lie with a poor angle.
-
That's not to imply I like zero trees...but creating a couple thousand Harbor Towns is not the answer in my opinion.
-
After playing an "overtreed" course as my home club for the last couple years, I've come to really appreciate them. Keep them limbed up well enough to allow backswings, thin enough to minimize how often a person is forced to chip out, and keep the understory clear enough that we don't face long searches for balls all day long. Otherwise, I don't know of any more interesting or economical way to create interesting recovery shots and accountability for guys who would otherwise just spray it all over the yard all day.
Harbour Town should be an outlier, but Oakmont should be too.
-
Jim,
If you saw how many trees I take out on the courses I work on you would know I am mostly joking but what Bryson is doing makes one ponder. If we end up having to put a clown’s mouth on all the greens is that really the solution?
Mark
-
Mark,
How often will Bryson play one of your courses?
-
Even Garland was flying the ball into power lines 270yds out way back in the 70's. Everyone except me knows multiple people who have just taken up the game who hit the ball 300+ yds. Approximately how many acres would it take to build a course where this modern golfer has an open shot to a green after every drive?
I'm just afraid that eventually you gotta stop these monster hacks ball by something other than fairway.
-
Jim,
If you saw how many trees I take out on the courses I work on you would know I am mostly joking but what Bryson is doing makes one ponder. If we end up having to put a clown’s mouth on all the greens is that really the solution?
Mark
Mark--
Bring Bryson and, say, Corey Pavin to Copake on a typical warm summer day during a dry spell and I think I'd lay my money on Pavin all day long!
Cheers,
--Tim
-
Tim,
I love Copake and all the work we did there (including the tree work). I used to think Pavin would be the right choice but not anymore. I think I would take my chances with Bryson hitting 25 yard chip shots vs Pavin hitting full shots from the fairway.
I am playing Harbour Town again this week and I am going to take even more notes than normal. I love the golf course (I love variety in golf’s playing fields in general). Maybe Pete Dye was even more if a genius than we all thought ;)
Jim,
Thankfully Bryson is not playing them often but the problem is the optics he creates and the influence this has on other courses.
-
This or something akin to it might help - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jC-guSi7hI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jC-guSi7hI)
And more of this kind of thing might aid the skilful and thoughtful at the expense of Brysons Bomber Squadron - short grass and firm terrain can be pretty effective.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ece4UfbU0AA5ARg?format=jpg&name=medium)
atb
-
Everything circles around. Maybe trees and narrower courses are the answer. Can you imagine what Bryson and ten more like him would do to a wide open Tom Doak Course! It would be called “the chip and putt classic” :'(
Maybe Harbour Town has the solution. It requires shaped golf shots and trajectory control not just 350+ yard bombs.
Sad to say I am only half joking 🙃
Mark,
And I half agree! Mark, if you believe that form follows function, you are probably not far off the truth. Of course, golf course design philosophy is now hotly debated almost as much as political debates, with those in the middle ground just catching incoming fire from both or all sides, but I know you can take it! ;D
I understand strategy and width, but also Flynn and others wrote to challenge accuracy, finesse and lastly distance. How do wide fw ever challenge accuracy? Outside the bubble that is gca.com, it is pretty widely known that wide courses are bombers paradises' and basically take most of the field out of contention. Say what you want about narrowing ANGC, and point out a few individual hole flubs, but most in the golf world don't think its a terrible idea.
We have more stats now. The USGA Slope rating guide says low handicap players typically can hit 66% of fairways 29-36 yards wide at 275+ yards. Those with 225-yard tee shots need fairways 35-42 yards to hit 66%. For most courses that will never see the tour, I would gather the fw should vary between about 36-42 yards wide, no? (maybe narrowed by mowing intermediate rough strip if the Tour ever does come to town) Much more is a waste, and 42 is wide enough for good players to strategically place the ball one side or the other.
Besides, the same strategy can be had, aiming for a side of the fw to have an open green, and depending on approach shot length, with a 42 yard wide fw and a green angled at 10-15 degrees as a 60 yard wide fw with a green angled at 30-45 degrees. What good does another 17 yards of fw do for strategy, while using more mowing, water, chemicals, etc.? Granted, it may do some good strategically, but for most courses, at what cost and cost to the environment? Are super wide fw really worth that, all things considered for most courses?
I have heard the modern arguments, and just can't agree that every fw needs to be ultra wide as a design theme. Occasionally for variety, of course is okay.
I will say, we also now know that most trees use more water than turf, and certainly native grasses (after established), which does argue in favor of lesser use, limited to strategic areas (for shade at tees, multi hole backdrops, safety screening, wind blocks, false wind blocks, etc.) They look better in small clumps of 3-15, perhaps watered with underground drip systems, and the scattered trees do offer some hope of recovery. I will also agree that for a century, trying to convert open sites to fully wooded ones with trees everywhere can now probably be viewed as at least a partial mistake. Open courses probably shouldn't aim for more than partially wooded status in most cases.
As always, just MHO.
-
Everything circles around. Maybe trees and narrower courses are the answer. Can you imagine what Bryson and ten more like him would do to a wide open Tom Doak Course! It would be called “the chip and putt classic” :'(
Maybe Harbour Town has the solution. It requires shaped golf shots and trajectory control not just 350+ yard bombs.
Sad to say I am only half joking 🙃
Serious question.
The "answer" to what?
-
As much as a i hate to suggest it. If the rules bodies aren't gonna do something about it, grow the rough up for PGA Tour events only. We'll see how well he does with 6 inch rough on all those wayward shots...
-
Harbour Town is ONE answer, and that is the great thing about golf — there are so many ways to solve the riddle of what makes for "the ideal playing board."
To say that wide and open is ALWAYS best, would of course not be prudent anymore than trying to define what would make for "the" best greens style or the best bunkering, etc.
Sites (acreage, land terrain, etc.), owners, members, players, regions, cultures and budgets (both the building and the eventual green fee) all dictate what "the ideal" is for any given design problem.
-
Nelson won 11 straight tournaments during our last great nation crisis. Exactly what has BDC done that requires action?
-
Has there ever been a time where the dominant golfer(s) were not the straighter of the long hitters of their era?
Woods was long
Mickelson was long
Norman was long (can debate if he was a dominant player though)
Nicklaus was long
Palmer was long
Hogan was long
Snead was long
Bobby Jones was long
etc...
Maybe you can make a case for Byron Nelson - Trevino and Player were great but I'm not sure that they were ever seen as the dominant player of their era.
Not sure why we would expect someone who solves the long and straight puzzle to be less than dominant. If a player can get 30 yards closer to the green without missing significantly more fairways I'll take their chances every day.
The real questions about the equipment should be:
1: Should the outer cusp be at 340-360 or 320-340 or 280-300 or 260-280 - the longer hitter will still be longer that the shorter hitter at any of these ranges
2: Should the greater dispersion pattern at higher club head speeds due to side-spin be allowed back into the game - I am a strong believer that the spinnier wound balls acted as a natural governor on desired maximum club head speeds
-
Forrest,
I agree. There is never just one answer.
Jeff,
The answer to watching 400 yard par fours reduced to chip and putt holes and 9I second shots into 570 yard par fives 😳
Again this is just a reaction to pro golf but it has so much negative influence on other golf courses.
-
As much as a i hate to suggest it. If the rules bodies aren't gonna do something about it, grow the rough up for PGA Tour events only. We'll see how well he does with 6 inch rough on all those wayward shots...
Surely it's relatively easier for big, strong, muscular pros/players to gouge ball from deep rough, especially if they're only using short irons and wedges, than it is for less physically strong pros/players?
And the physically less strong, will likely be further back from the tee so having to use straighter clubs for their approach shots which has a double-whammy consequence as straighter faced clubs are more difficult to hit from longer grass especially so for less physically strong players.
And as for trees, big, strong folks can usually hit the ball over them whereas the physically less strong are less likely to be able to do so.
Short grass and tight lies on the other hand, encourage and reward quality ball striking and creative shotmaking.
atb
-
Go read the thread: ABOLISH THE TEE! That would solve it all, especially as the teeing ground gets chewed up into a pulp field toward the end of the day.
-
Go read the thread: ABOLISH THE TEE! That would solve it all, especially as the teeing ground gets chewed up into a pulp field toward the end of the day.
You're going to need to build a lot of teeing grounds for that solution. Or: Astroturf for all tees!
-
Norman was long (can debate if he was a dominant player though)
Jim S. -
From bleacherreport.com -
In his career, Greg Norman has spent a total of 331 weeks at the top of the Official World Golf Ranking. Only Tiger Woods has spent more time as the top-ranked golfer in the world.
That sounds dominant to me. ;)
DT
-
Everything circles around. Maybe trees and narrower courses are the answer. Can you imagine what Bryson and ten more like him would do to a wide open Tom Doak Course! It would be called “the chip and putt classic” :'(
Maybe Harbour Town has the solution. It requires shaped golf shots and trajectory control not just 350+ yard bombs.
Sad to say I am only half joking 🙃
Mark:
Well there aren't "ten more like him" right now, but hopefully Bryson will play at Memorial Park in November, the week before The Masters, so you can find out your answer.
Of course, it's not "wide open" -- we started with a lot of trees -- though it is nowhere near as narrow as Harbour Town, either.
If it's dry and windy instead of wet before and during the event, the scores would be 5-10 shots higher for 72 holes, but you certainly can't bank on that in Houston. Which doesn't really matter, hopefully the best guy wins, regardless of score.
If they'd let me set the course up, the scores would also be a bit different, but with the Tour insisting they won't use a hole location with more than a 2% slope, my hands were pretty much tied on trying to make it hard for them. Here's a hint: if the best players in the world are never required to aim outside the hole on a shortish putt, they're going to go low, no matter how far they drive the ball or how many trees are in play.
-
Why is it that they require less than 2% slope - it is mere vanity? Another issue could be pace of play - imagine how glacial pace of play would be if every player had to go through the routine and process of making another 4-6 putts a round that are not tap-in's.
Also - how large does the <2% pin placement area need to be?
If they'd let me set the course up, the scores would also be a bit different, but with the Tour insisting they won't use a hole location with more than a 2% slope, my hands were pretty much tied on trying to make it hard for them. Here's a hint: if the best players in the world are never required to aim outside the hole on a shortish putt, they're going to go low, no matter how far they drive the ball or how many trees are in play.
-
Go read the thread: ABOLISH THE TEE! That would solve it all, especially as the teeing ground gets chewed up into a pulp field toward the end of the day.
You're going to need to build a lot of teeing grounds for that solution. Or: Astroturf for all tees!
Not if you bifurcate. No tees just for the pros...
-
Why is it that they require less than 2% slope - it is mere vanity? Another issue could be pace of play - imagine how glacial pace of play would be if every player had to go through the routine and process of making another 4-6 putts a round that are not tap-in's.
Also - how large does the <2% pin placement area need to be?
I think they want the 2% area five feet to either side of the hole, but I don't remember exactly.
Why? I suppose slow play could be a factor / excuse [the USGA does manage to get the same number of players around in a day], but I think the bottom line is just that the players don't want to have to worry about another 4-6 putts a round that are not tap-ins.
-
It is not just about going low it is about the game being turned into who is the best chipper/putter because strategic play/shot making go out the window unless you count who is best able to hit 30 yard flop shots out of heavy rough :'(
You saw what happened this past weekend at a Ross course that I believe had some of its width restored to it. So much for better angles of play. No angles are required on most chip shots 😊
-
It is not just about going low it is about the game being turned into who is the best chipper/putter because strategic play/shot making go out the window unless you count who is best able to hit 30 yard flop shots out of heavy rough :'(
You saw what happened this past weekend at a Ross course that I believe had some of its width restored to it. So much for better angles of play. No angles are required on most chip shots 😊
Mark very true,
Bryson still won despite how awful his wedge game was at times. Could you imagine how badly he would have crushed the field if he had those dialed in...
-
Tom D — Actually, perhaps LESS teeing s.f. -- as this would certainly gobble up the turf and make it even more challenging to whack a ball from the starting ground!
Screw the 350 yard drives -- get them back to 250, and in a hurry.
-
The idea of banning tees is just another nonsensical wag the dog solution like banning U grooves was a few years ago (although banning U grooves actually happened, where I would put the odds at tees getting banned at roughly 776,542:1).
Why do I say it wouldn't work?
Because a year ago I switched to a Taylormade Original One driver. It has a 275cc head and, at least in my hands, is the longest driver I've ever played. And it's a breeze to hit off the deck. I'm a 10 handicap, so I definitely don't hit it on the button every time. The sweet spot is still a little higher than would be ideal when hitting from fairway. But even if I launch it low from the deck, I still get a ton of run. And if I get the sweet spot on the ball, it goes virtually as far as from a tee. Not to mention, I really love that when I hit it from the fairway I can confidently count on taking the left side out of play... it just doesn't hook away from me like it can when I tee it up.
So what do you think a pro who hits their 3 wood 310 yards would do with a driver engineered to be hit from turf and fitted to their swing and that's harder to lose to a hook? All those guys need is a dime-sized sweet spot anyways. And meanwhile, teeless amateurs will riot and we'll all be standing in shovel holes carved by 25 handicaps who still swing just as hard as they ever did, and make flush contact just as infrequently as they ever did too.
We're going to get pros back to hitting 250 yard drives by banning tees? They're hitting their damn 3 irons that far currently. Didn't Bryson hit like a 240 yard 8 iron on Sunday from the rough? Wait til the scratch players at every club start demanding the tee boxes be maintained at intermediate rough height so they can hit fliers all day.
Want to actually rein in distance? Either rein in the specs, or make accuracy count again.
-
Want to actually rein in distance? Either rein in the specs, or make accuracy count again.
Both could be achieved simply by mandating a specific dimple depth and pattern for all conforming golf balls.
-
Jason — "Nonsensical" seems a bit brash. Perhaps even snarky. But, opinions count. It would obviously never take flight, but abolishing the use of tees remains the LOWEST COST solution. Give me another?
I like placing a premium on accuracy. Always have.
-
Par is of course relative but maybe someone has to design an 18 hole “championship course” with 8 or 10 par three holes instead of the normal four or sometimes five. That will save cost/real estate and take a bit of the distance advantage away from the bombers. Some of my favorite holes in golf are par threes so I wouldn’t mind seeing more of them. Think of the extra few “short holes” as the architect simply requiring more than just a pitch shot to reach the putting surface “in regulation” :)
Tom Doak, you like to lead! I put you to the challenge ;D
-
I know that there is no way to stop the regular threads about courses for Tour Pros, but I do have the same, simple question that has been posted many times before: why should any other category of golfer, including excellent players, care? 50 courses played one time during the year. Even accounting for the rotations for the Majors other than the Masters, it is a minuscule amount of rounds. They play a game with which as to paraphrase Mr. Jones "we are unfamiliar". Fortunately, it seems in the current era that few architects give much thought to designing courses for the Pros.
Ira
-
The "wedge" that gets driven in this discussion is the fact that increased distance among the elite players begins to distance those who play the game for fun and its social aspects — to the few who they see on TV.
In the 1850s nearly every "average" golfer could attain the distance of the elite...but today, the game has a growing gap between these two fields. And, that does nothing to help golf. Rather, it divides one of the greatest aspects of the sport — that we can all play on the same playing board and have a go at giving the same course an equal try. Now we have numerous tees, different set-ups and even different pars assigned to holes depending on who's playing.
The only upside is what John Solheim articulated to me many years ago: We sell a lot more clubs, balls and gimmicks because everyone wants to excel to attain that farther distance goal.
-
Ira,
It is because it has so much influence over what happens on many other golf courses even though tour pros may never play there. You do have to also remember, it is not just pros, it is college kids who play at courses all over and hit the ball just as far if not farther and high level amateur or tour qualifier events that are played everywhere, ... When you add up the number of courses that don’t want to be relegated to chip and putt courses it is significant. It is not just the ones you see on TV.
-
Mark,
I am a rank amateur, but if your proposition is that a great number of heavily treed courses is good for architecture, please count me out. I think that trees in moderation can be fantastic, but not just for the sake of difficulty.
Ira
-
What trees or rather the roots do to the ground and underground shouldn’t be underestimated.
Plant lots of trees and look forward to enjoying adversely effected turf conditions and drainage in the years to come.
Just rollback the bloody ball.
Atb
-
Ira,
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that MANY golf courses, not just the ones you see the pros play on TV, are impacted by what the pros do. If all we had to worry about were 50 courses that the pros play, we wouldn’t have to have this discussion but unfortunately that is not the case. It is the trickle down effect.
But Tom Doak is going to build a world class 6400 yard championship design on 110 acres with 4 par fives, 4 par fours and 10 par threes that challenges the best golfers in the world and the whole golf design world is going to take notice and change direction for the better. And of course Tom is going to toss me a bone for the idea ;D
And by the way, I am only half kidding 😉
-
Forrest,
I agree. There is never just one answer.
Jeff,
The answer to watching 400 yard par fours reduced to chip and putt holes and 9I second shots into 570 yard par fives 😳
Again this is just a reaction to pro golf but it has so much negative influence on other golf courses.
It's definitely not just pro golf. SCGA Amateur Qualifier today with a college freshman. 540 yard par-5? driver, pitching wedge. He had 157 in.
Made par.
-
But Tom Doak is going to build a world class 6400 yard championship design on 110 acres with 4 par fives, 4 par fours and 10 par threes that challenges the best golfers in the world and the whole golf design world is going to take notice and change direction for the better. And of course Tom is going to toss me a bone for the idea ;D
Make up your mind, man. An hour ago you had me building a course with ten par-3's. I didn't even have time to ask you where I was supposed to plant the trees to make that one more interesting.
-
Tom,
LOL. Yes am I jumping around. I think I like the 10 par three idea much better. It really would be good for the game. Let’s focus on that and let someone else worry about planting trees on existing golf courses 😉
In all seriousness, this 10 par three idea could be a good one 😊
-
Tom,
LOL. Yes am I jumping around. I think I like the 10 par three idea much better. It really would be good for the game. Let’s focus on that and let someone else worry about planting trees on existing golf courses 😉
In all seriousness, this 10 par three idea could be a good one 😊
Okay. There are ten par threes at The Loop. But you only play five of them in any 18-hole round.
-
Tom,
LOL. Yes am I jumping around. I think I like the 10 par three idea much better. It really would be good for the game. Let’s focus on that and let someone else worry about planting trees on existing golf courses 😉
In all seriousness, this 10 par three idea could be a good one 😊
I love this idea! Zach Johnson, et al., could be winning into his/their 50's!
-
I will have to play The Loop.
But think about the 10 par three idea in 18 holes. If your 10 par threes averaged 200 yards, your four par fours averaged 500 yards and your four par fives averaged 600 yards you would still only have a 6400 yard course from the tips. This could be the future 😊
-
Allow golf balls to have whatever dimples manufacturers can come up with.
Same with materials, number of layers, whatever.
Simply require:
1) Minimum diameter (ball must not pass thru ring of given diameter
2) Ball must float (tested in pure distilled water at 70 degrees F)
I would pay to watch Bryson take his full swing at this ball!
-
I played with a young woman on my captain's choice team at this weeks shootout. (We won - easily)
She is about 6ft 140 lbs. Just started golfing this year. New equipment.
There are several holes between 280 - 300 yds from the women's tees at this course. (Verified by GPS)
She drove on or over each of these greens.
It IS the equipment, folks.
-
I will have to play The Loop.
But think about the 10 par three idea in 18 holes. If your 10 par threes averaged 200 yards, your four par fours averaged 500 yards and your four par fives averaged 600 yards you would still only have a 6400 yard course from the tips. This could be the future 😊
Audubon Park, in New Orleans, had ten par-3's if I remember correctly, and I put it in the front of Volume 2 of TCG. It only has two par-5's and neither is above 500 yards, but it seemed to be a fairly strong course against the par of 64. As we all know, even Tour pros are unlikely to be much under par for the week on the par-3 holes . . . because for many years now, those are the longest approach shots they face.
But does grouping a bunch of holes around the 200-yard mark achieve variety of design?
The most fair solution is just to build the holes in 25- or 30-yard increments. You're not going to "defend par" -- par is an abstract, anyway -- but by definition you're not going to favor anyone with that setup, except for the better golfer.
-
Tom,
I didn’t mean all the holes were that length. You could have a par three at 120 yards and one at 280 yards or whatever makes sense. I was just trying to get an idea what the total length of the 18 hole course might be and if everything netted out that way i suggested it would only be 6400 yards. Again the idea was a course of that kind of length that had all kinds of variety and tested the best players. To do so, you likely need that many par threes to somewhat neutralize the bombers. That is the whole idea yet still have holes that let the bombers “release the Kraken” every once in a while but just not on 80% of the golf holes 😊
-
Ira,
I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that MANY golf courses, not just the ones you see the pros play on TV, are impacted by what the pros do. If all we had to worry about were 50 courses that the pros play, we wouldn’t have to have this discussion but unfortunately that is not the case. It is the trickle down effect.
But Tom Doak is going to build a world class 6400 yard championship design on 110 acres with 4 par fives, 4 par fours and 10 par threes that challenges the best golfers in the world and the whole golf design world is going to take notice and change direction for the better. And of course Tom is going to toss me a bone for the idea ;D
And by the way, I am only half kidding 😉
Maybe it is the heat in the Mid Atlantic States, but I am still struggling with your logic. If courses that Pros play influence other courses, it seems that we would want the Tour courses to be ones that are enjoyable and interesting for the rest of us rather than difficult courses that challenge the Pros. I am glad that I played Butler National once when I was young. I cannot imagine wanting to play it again. The Bear Trap is great fun to watch on TV, but there is zero chance I would ever choose to play that course.
Ira
-
Ira,
I am sure you don’t think all the courses the pros play are no fun for the rest of us ??? Some might not be fun at 7500 yards, but maybe at 6200 they are a blast. I could name 50 right off the top of my head that fit the bill. So could you if you thought about it. These courses DO influence many other courses because soooo many golfers and members of other clubs watch them on TV or “in the old days” used to go to the tournaments and walk around. Augusta National might have been the biggest culprit over the years. Just think the impact they have had on other courses from the standpoint of maintenance and “Tiger proofing”,... They are constantly tinkering with the golf course and this leads to MANY others doing the same.