Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: archie_struthers on September 20, 2020, 08:32:09 PM
-
:o :o
Maybe it's how Augusta's stewards felt when a young Tiger Woods dismantled their golf course. Given what we know now it might not have bothered them as much. He was a true prodigy then and arguably the best ever now !
DeChambeau , outlier or genius , only time will tell. The golf course held up to scoring pretty well, save Bryson, but how he did it was surely smash mouth golf. You might not be able to design a course that can stop the growing divide between the elite players and the rest of us. Will this make design decisions impossible ?
-
:o :o
Maybe it's how Augusta's stewards felt when a young Tiger Woods dismantled their golf course. Given what we know now it might not have bothered them as much. He was a true prodigy then and arguably the best ever now !
DeChambeau , outlier or genius , only time will tell. The golf course held up to scoring pretty well, save Bryson, but how he did it was surely smash mouth golf. You might not be able to design a course that can stop the growing divide between the elite players and the rest of us. Will this make design decisions impossible ?
5 inch rough isn't really an architectural choice for one.
Bunkers that actually matter could influence strategy, rather than the "get in the bunker" ones we see on courses that host championships in the US.
I'll never understand how in our quest for more speed, more rough, more super tight fairways that are nearly impossibleto pitch from...
we have allowed bunkers to become desireable places to hit the ball(i.e. ithey nduce no fear)
There are so many, yet they produce little thought, much less fear for elite players.
I can assure you if there were a few Pot or severe bunkers randomly out 300 to 360 on ANY of the finishing holes at WF, Bryson might've hit a club that went a distance to assure himslef of not being in one that could produce a double or worse.
There was zero fear for him out there of more than a bogie-anywhere.
-
1. 8800 yard courses?
2. 12" rough?
3. why bother with bunkers?
and the old stand by options:
- 10 clubs
- reduce ball by 30 percent
- shorten club length
6 under par is not that earth shattering
-
No major changes needed; only one guy was under par. If 30 players were under it would be a different story.
-
Pretty remarkable weekend really. BD was so comfortable in the rough he completely validated his long term strategic vision for how to play on tour.
To do what he does, you have to make the putts and he did.
As a legit scratch, I don’t think I’d have broken 320 from his tee shots...and he shot 274.
Are WF greens Poa?
-
No major changes needed; only one guy was under par. If 30 players were under it would be a different story.
Exactly
-
No major changes needed; only one guy was under par. If 30 players were under it would be a different story.
Pithy and profound. But the last round was golf narcolepsy. Total snoozer.
-
If you set up the course so that nobody can hit a high % of fairways, and if you back off the tee shot you're left with 220-yard aproaches, then the only way to play is to smash it down to wedge distance.
If the fairways were wider and the rough wasn't so thick, it would have helped other guys more than Bryson and Wolff.
So, it all depends on what type of champion you're trying to identify, and where you want the balance of power to fall -- but right now, it falls in favor of power.
-
Coming into the tournament, I think Bryson understood something important, and not only analytically but also deep in his bones: ie that the golf course didn't have to be -- for him -- what anyone else intended or wanted it to be. He could see it exactly the way he himself wanted to see it, even if no one else saw it that same way. He realized at a fundamental level that neither the architect-design, nor the superintendent-maintenance practices, nor the set up men-USGA goals could stand in the way of his freedom, unless he himself gave them that power and gave away his freedom. And he didn't do that; he honoured his freedom and kept true to his own inner vision on how to best play the course -- and then he went out and did it. Yes, as others have noted, the entire rest of the field shot the usual US Open score, on a prototypical US Open course. But maybe that's exactly what's different this time, and new: ie the winner was the one who simply didn't believe in a 'typical US Open' course, or let himself feel constrained or impinged upon by the 'usual US Open score'; for BC, they didn't have any meaning at all, and thus no impact either. What's new, perhaps, is the victory of subjective belief over the (so-called) objective realities.
All just sheer speculation, of course -- but if it's true that sure might change architecture moving forward!
-
Terry,
Yes, but so was some majors when Tiger or Jack were just stepping on necks.
To the OP, no, BD will not change architecture. He was on this week big time. Everyone says he just hit it a mile and then wedged on....go back and look how many times he was on the proper side, in the rough, to play the hole. he consistently hit it to the proper side...consistently.
The only architectural change I can image is defending easy angles to certain pins from the deep rough; stop all the tree clearing. That's it. Keep the fairways the same, keep it all the same, but don't give an easy bail out in the far rough so the player has an easy pitch with a wedge. Hitting it to the correct position always will matter, and you don't have to choke the fairways with trees, just stop denuding classic courses of trees in the outer rough.
-
The only architectural change I can image is defending easy angles to certain pins from the deep rough; stop all the tree clearing. That's it. Keep the fairways the same, keep it all the same, but don't give an easy bail out in the far rough so the player has an easy pitch with a wedge. Hitting it to the correct position always will matter, and you don't have to choke the fairways with trees, just stop denuding classic courses of trees in the outer rough.
The correct reaction depends on whether you are designing for tournament play or for member play.
As for the trees, don't worry, all those trees cut down in all the restoration work will grow back in another sixty years :-\ The question is, how far will the best players be hitting it then? (Assuming we have not completely destroyed civilization by then.)
-
I understand. And I'm not talking about trees over hanging the fairways. I'm talking about the ones 20-30 yards out in the rough.
From the member tees are they really hitting it out there and if so, should they have a clear shot? I'm not saying make it narrow. I'm just saying on parkland golf courses let the trees stay out on the edges.
On most links courses I think BD will struggle because the big miss can be a big number. At Winged Foot the big miss was often a tough par or easy bogey if there was only rough to deal with.
-
I think this win will ultimately have an indirect affect on either architecture or course set up or both.
As Tiger before him set the trend for golfers to become athletic or athletes, BD will be a trend setter for power above all else. Today, he's the longest guy on tour, but how long before several other guys are hitting it past him because they saw his success and want to do the same?
-
Don M. Couldn't agree more. When one misses a fairway by five yards, he should have a direct line to the green, although the shot should be tougher than the one from the fairway. If the player misses the fairway by twenty yards, a direct shot to the green should rarely be available.
-
What Jeff said!
Bunkers on USA parkland courses don't seem to penalize our professional players much. They look pretty but probably present preferred lies most of the time over heavy grass. Also they tend to collect the wayward shot into line-sight of the green rather than allowing the same errant shot to end up in jail amongst the trees.
UK bunker styles with their pots and steep lips are a half shot penalty at least most every time.
-
wrong conjunction, Mr. Struthers. Outlier and genius, strategic and sinewy
-
Lavin, what would have cured the final round of narcolepsy? Hot Bench? Court TV? Caso Cerrado?
Wouldn't that be the identical difference between your court room and a televised clown show?
-
Since there is no rough to speak of at Augusta what happens in November?
-
I think this win will ultimately have an indirect affect on either architecture or course set up or both.
As Tiger before him set the trend for golfers to become athletic or athletes, BD will be a trend setter for power above all else. Today, he's the longest guy on tour, but how long before several other guys are hitting it past him because they saw his success and want to do the same?
I couldn't really care less about pro golf - a small rota of two or three new 9000 yard stadium courses built specifically for tour events would resolve that one.
The bigger issue as I see it is on everyday club courses. We're already seeing an emerging generation of 20+ handicappers who routinely hit the ball 300 yards off the tee - in wildly unpredictable directions! In fact, often the wilder the shot the better as it gives them a good lie on an adjacent fairway for their inevitable wedge shot to the green rather than being in the rough.
If this trend towards power above all else continues unabated the majority of golf courses are going to become extremely dangerous and unpleasant places to be. People are going to get killed.
All that needs doing is to tweak the current ball regulations slightly. An obvious and very simple suggestion is one put forward by Dr MacKenzie nearly 100 years ago in The Spirit of St Andrews;
Floaters. All golf balls must float in water.
-
What Mr. Doak said. To lend some glamour to his analysis, let me re-iterate this classic Seve quote:
“I’d like to see the fairways more narrow. Then everyone would have to play from the rough. Not just me.”
That is exactly what they did at Winged Foot. Everyone had to play out of the rough, so the guy, who got it the farthest out there, won.
Tip of the hat to Bryson DeChambeau. He was able to correctly analyze the situation of professional golf, his own talent and mechanics and came up with a long-term plan that, I dare say, 95% of us have no chance of even comprehending intellectually. If you don't believe that, try to read the Golfing Machine and cobble together your swing from the many components in that book. There will be some trying to emulate him, but do they have his talent and propensity to suffer? Right now I think he's far more likely to turn into a legendary outlier genius of golf, rather than the initiator of a broad new wave.
-
;D ;)
+1 Duncan
Ha, ha Monsior Ron, but of course!
On a related note somewhere outlier /genius Moe Norman is smiling today 8)
-
Terry,
Yes, but so was some majors when Tiger or Jack were just stepping on necks.
To the OP, no, BD will not change architecture. He was on this week big time. Everyone says he just hit it a mile and then wedged on....go back and look how many times he was on the proper side, in the rough, to play the hole. he consistently hit it to the proper side...consistently.
The only architectural change I can image is defending easy angles to certain pins from the deep rough; stop all the tree clearing. That's it. Keep the fairways the same, keep it all the same, but don't give an easy bail out in the far rough so the player has an easy pitch with a wedge. Hitting it to the correct position always will matter, and you don't have to choke the fairways with trees, just stop denuding classic courses of trees in the outer rough.
+1. And putting will always matter especially on those greens, and BD was the best putter this week especially from 10 feet in. Btw, despite our common perception, under Par winning scores at the US Open are the norm not the exception. I think 40 out of the last 50 have had under par winning scores. -4 won at even WF in 1984.
-
Since there is no rough to speak of at Augusta what happens in November?
Superior architecture(what's left of it) will trump artificial setup
-
Lavin, what would have cured the final round of narcolepsy? Hot Bench? Court TV? Caso Cerrado?
Wouldn't that be the identical difference between your court room and a televised clown show?
Shot making would have. Was there any? I want to see flighted shots.
-
If you set up the course so that nobody can hit a high % of fairways, and if you back off the tee shot you're left with 220-yard aproaches, then the only way to play is to smash it down to wedge distance.
If the fairways were wider and the rough wasn't so thick, it would have helped other guys more than Bryson and Wolff.
So, it all depends on what type of champion you're trying to identify, and where you want the balance of power to fall -- but right now, it falls in favor of power.
And this is what BDC pointed out in his post round interview. If the most accurate guy in the field misses the tight fairway by 1 yard but faces the same penalty as the longest hitter missing it by 15 yards then the set up favors the longest hitters.
Another point he made was that almost all his gains in yardage have been from becoming stronger and therefore able to swing faster. He has gained 25 yards using the same club and ball technology that he used when he was an average length hitter on tour.
Secondly this increased strength gave BDC the option of hitting it to the green out of lies that others could not. There were some long hitters in the field that felt the penalties of going wide, they didn't have the same shot options out of the thick stuff that BDC had.
Unless we foresee the golfing masses going out and hitting the gym, the distance problem (if there is one) in the handicap golfer realm remains pretty much the same as it has been since the current ball and club regulations have been in place. If current fitness standards among the population remain the same and your course is going to have almost exclusively club golfer rounds then it would seem unlikely that you need to rethink any architecture or set up decisions based on what BDC is doing.
-
8)
My thinking in posing this question was that the Tiger phenomenon caused golf course committees to run to architects to "defend par". It made for a decade or more of lengthening and toughening of the golf course. Many here appreciated the more artistic defenders of architecture, the minimalists, who railed against the machine. Some great work ensued and I would argue the last twenty years have been quite impressive.
Personally , I think that Bryson's win will be less traumatic than Tiger's and result in less wringing of hands given that Bryson is so different in his approach to the game. He will be considered an outlier rather than a "new wave". But given his non-conformity it just might prompt the establishment to push a "tour ball" once and for all. Particularly if he wins a lot. Only time will tell!
-
Here are the driving distance leaders for the tournament:
https://www.usopen.com/stats/player-stats.html#!driving-distance
DeChambeau finished 7th in driving distance. Wolff was 2nd. Every player in the top 10 in driving distance finished in the top 25 in the tournament, including the 1st, 2nd, T6 and T8 finishers. (note these final stats do not include players that failed to make the cut) The shortest driver, Zach Johnson (only 289 yards) finished T8.
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.
It's interesting how DeChambeau is identified as the poster child for driving distance issues.
-
Archie, I think that is the key point. How replicable is the big Golfers approach. Players in the late 90's/early 00's were, if we are being honest, not in shape at all. All they had to do was achieve the bare minimum of fitness to see gains. BDC has taken golf athleticism to level that not all players will be able to copy. Even if long players (conventionally) with great swings like Rory or oostie bullk up they don't have the physical stature to replicate what BDC has done.
Tiger also arrived just before the prov1 and so the shock to the sport was two fold. BDC is just using pretty much the same tech we have had for a few years now.
-
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.
-
All these guys can hit it insane distances. The difference was Bryson was hitting driver more often than most because the rough didn’t bother him as much as it did some of the others. Justin Thomas can hit is as far as anyone but out of the heavy rough is another matter. That is where Bryson has the big advantage with his brute strength.
I don’t for example think Bryson has as big of an advantage over most of the field at Augusta. There is no heavy rough. He won’t win there is my prediction. Any even when there is heavy rough you still need some breaks. Bryson didn’t win at Olympia Fields which proved just as tough as WF.
-
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.
-
Will BDC wear his body out hitting the ball this hard? TW's knee and back problems and Keopka's knee ......
The left knee could be the weak link.
-
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.
-
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 asked Erik B this on another thread, but I have seen those green books, including the heat maps and % of slope, but how exactly does one use those to predict anything other than general break? If you know.....
-
Agree with past responses, thus no green books (artificial aids) and a shot clock.
-
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.
Well certainly Lon Hinkle, Dan Pohl, et al (very long and/or the longest of their day) were not world-beaters.
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
-
All these guys can hit it insane distances. The difference was Bryson was hitting driver more often than most because the rough didn’t bother him as much as it did some of the others. Justin Thomas can hit is as far as anyone but out of the heavy rough is another matter. That is where Bryson has the big advantage with his brute strength.
I don’t for example think Bryson has as big of an advantage over most of the field at Augusta. There is no heavy rough. He won’t win there is my prediction. Any even when there is heavy rough you still need some breaks. Bryson didn’t win at Olympia Fields which proved just as tough as WF.
I think there's a lot of truth here. DeChambeau had very little trouble blasting his ball out of the thickest grass -- that seemed to be where his strength gave him his greatest advantage. That will be no factor at Augusta.
That would argue for less rough, not more, at major championships. Jeff Warne's suggestion of more penal bunkers makes sense to me (though, don't try this at home; we did a bunker project at our club a few years ago, and the one fairway bunker that kept our best players from getting to the green in regulation has already been softened.)
Ultimately, the most foolproof way to prevent bomb-and-gouge is with water. But who wants to play a course with water on both sides of every hole?
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
-
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.
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
The rules on the greens books were well thought out in IMO:
Golfers may continue to use a putting-green map or other putting-green information, except that:[/color][size=1rem]Any image of a putting green must be limited to a scale of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) or smaller (the “scale limit”).[/size][size=1rem]Any book or other paper containing a map or image of a putting green must not be larger than 4 ¼ inches x 7 inches (the “size limit”), although a “hole location sheet” that displays nine or more holes on a single sheet of paper may be larger, provided that any image of a single putting green meets the scale limit.[/size][size=1rem]No magnification of putting-green information is allowed other than a player’s normal wearing of prescription glasses or lenses.[/size][size=1rem]Hand-drawn or written information about a putting green is only allowed if contained in a book or paper meeting the size limit and written by the player and/or his or her caddie.[/size]
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
The rules on the greens books were well thought out in IMO:
Golfers may continue to use a putting-green map or other putting-green information, except that:[size=1rem]Any image of a putting green must be limited to a scale of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) or smaller (the “scale limit”).[/size][size=1rem]Any book or other paper containing a map or image of a putting green must not be larger than 4 ¼ inches x 7 inches (the “size limit”), although a “hole location sheet” that displays nine or more holes on a single sheet of paper may be larger, provided that any image of a single putting green meets the scale limit.[/size][size=1rem]No magnification of putting-green information is allowed other than a player’s normal wearing of prescription glasses or lenses.[/size][size=1rem]Hand-drawn or written information about a putting green is only allowed if contained in a book or paper meeting the size limit and written by the player and/or his or her caddie.[/size]
Oh my....
yep, no loopholes there.
Are my 5x drugstore readers "normal prescription"
because I need them to read, but use them for nothing else.
hard to see where any of that is "good for the game"
Now "get off my lawn" :)
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?
Guys have been carrying yardage books (and green books) for many, many years.
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?
Guys have been carrying yardage books (and green books) for many, many years.
Yardage books yes green reading books no. I wouldn't consider 5 years many many years.
-
There have been bombers in all eras. I've seen Nicklaus in the early '70s at a Major hit a 1 or 2 iron on a 230+ yard par 3 into a stiff wind when his competitors were coming up short with fairway woods. He had a huge competitive advantage because of his length and ability to keep the ball between the trees.
In the mid-70s, post Troon, I played behind Weiskopf once and saw him hit a 400+ yard drive with a 60 yard hook (on Scarlet #15) and a mid-iron into the wind on a 210 yard par 3 (#17) just before Jim Brown hit a 3-wood to the same green (Coach Brown knocked it closer). Weiskopf just wasn't able to keep the ball in play when he swung as hard in competition (or maybe he lacked the confidence).
As a kid I often played sandlot baseball on a field with a high, but short left field fence. To protect the cars and houses, anything over the fence left of a line in centerfield was an automatic out. Hit a second ball out and the player was ejected.
Personally, I think that bifurcation is the answer to a problem which is not existential to the game. But if it really bothers so many one-set-of-rules purists that a few guys can rip the ball while keeping it in play, paint a line at a radius of 300 - 325 yards from the tee on selected long holes and impose a 1-stroke penalty via a local rule for those who hit past it. It would be a silly rule as are most of the distance arguments continuing since the days of the featheries, gutties, haskels, and so on.
I do like the idea of speeding up the game via a clock or other means. But in addition to limiting the use of detailed notes during play, I'd like to see the role of the caddie greatly reduced to just carrying and cleaning clubs, tending the flagstick, and tidying up the course. I'm good with scopes sans slope and other functions, and a "normal" course guide with a few scribbles.
-
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.
The new green books specs are good for the game. They take away the ridiculous detail you could get into and are now just "guides." I have many of the new, legal ones, and they are helpful, but only in a "gross" way, certainly not in a "this 12-footer is on the right edge" sort of way. They just don't contain that level of detail any more.
How so are they "good for the game"?
What limits them from more detail?
If the manufacturers can completely hoodwink the USGA (and now most golfers) why can't someone like Bryson find a way to get whatever info he needs crammed into a small book.
I will freely admit I don't know the rules regarding what makes one legal and another not.
Those books are just something else to slow the game down. Get rid of the books. Give them lasers and lets move the game along at a much quicker pace. Watching and listening to Bryson discuss various percentages with his caddy is painful. Pick a club and hit the Fing thing. Jack was blamed for slowing the game down. This is taking it to a whole new level. Do you really need the dew point and relative humidity to hit a quality golf shot?
Guys have been carrying yardage books (and green books) for many, many years.
Yardage books yes green reading books no. I wouldn't consider 5 years many many years.
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).
-
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.
-
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.
Jeff,
I don't need to straddle my line to use my feet to help me read greens. I can do it off the the side and it still helps on virtually all putts. And, honestly, the place it helps me the most is standing parallel to my line, at the hole -- especially on unfamiliar greens. I want to know if the green is flat, slopping toward me, or sloping AWAY at the hole so that I can get my SPEED correct.
Truly has been a game changer for me.
And by the way, guys have been doing this for many years with not penalty. People just didn't notice it because there were so few of them...
-
WELCOME TO THE GREEN BOOK WEBSITE"Our 'Green Book' has become widely recognised as the world's most detailed and accurate green reading book. The books were launched on the European Tour in 2015 at the Scottish Open and were used by the event winner Ricky Fowler. Since then they have been used by 7 of the Worlds Top Ten Golfers and by more than 20 event winners on the European Tour. We are proud to have been able to support the British Olympic Team at the recent games where Justin Rose won a gold medal and to be supporting the Ryder Cup Europe Team in 2016.The information in our books is used to help inform shot choices and speed up decision making and make it more accurate. Using the information is all part of effective planning the way around a golf course – just like knowing wind direction, driving lines and shot distances. The better the information golfers have available, the more accurate their planning and shot making will be. Less shots, in less time. Simple.We have now made the Green Book available for golfers outside of the professional tours. We have developed a special book which enables amateur golfers to quickly see the slopes on greens, saving time reading putts from multiple angles and helping prevent mis-reads and dropped shots. The production of these books is exclusive and we can only carry out a limited number of projects each season with our tour commitments. Please contact us for more information."
I would not count someone's hand drawn book. Maybe this is wrong. Aimpoint reading the greens with your feet is not new. I was told use your feet when I was junior 40+ years ago by ann old pro.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why does anything need to change? All the players played the same course using the same rules. DeChambeau just did it better last weekend.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50370425886_271e8af5ab_z.jpg)
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.
-
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
-
"Will DeChambeau's win change architecture?"
No need to change architecture.
Just rollback equipment and cut all the grass nice-n-short.
atb
-
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
-
... 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.
-
design could incorporate thicker rough the farther you drive the ball
-
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.
-
The issue (with US Open caliper golf) of simply letting the rough grow in narrower past 300 yards is that the longer the drive, the shorter the iron required. And, the stronger the contestant, the higher loft of the iron required to get home. This, therefore, does not work out well, even though it sounds quite "easy" to accomplish.
I am reminded of William Flynn's remarkable quote — and the order he so perfectly described the ideal hallmarks of the demand of a golf course:
"Accuracy, carry and length..."
-
The issue (with US Open caliper golf) of simply letting the rough grow in narrower past 300 yards is that the longer the drive, the shorter the iron required. And, the stronger the contestant, the higher loft of the iron required to get home. This, therefore, does not work out well, even though it sounds quite "easy" to accomplish.
I am reminded of William Flynn's remarkable quote — and the order he so perfectly described the ideal hallmarks of the demand of a golf course:
"Accuracy, carry and length..."
I am not sure how to go about this in relation to the game at it's highest levels.
Fast and firm seems to work only if the weather cooperates ..... no rain. And with much smaller greens.
25 yard fairway width with water hazards left and right ..... seems boring and extreme.
-
4 pages of the usual post major yada yada yada. More hazards, deeper bunkers, deeper rough, new way back tee boxes, tucked pins, etc, etc.
And the solution still remains the same: Tournament ball
-
4 pages of the usual post major yada yada yada. More hazards, deeper bunkers, deeper rough, new way back tee boxes, tucked pins, etc, etc.
And the solution still remains the same: Tournament ball
Kalen the USGA is studying the problem. Patience buddy. ;D
Should have a preliminary report circa 2030. By that time you could call it a history book.
-
I'd love it, but why does anyone think the USGA can do anything to force a tournament ball for the Pro Tours? The Tours have stated that they think the longball is an attractive part of their product, and they will keep it no matter what the USGA does. Unless they want to change it, we are stuck with what we have.
The other solution is to stop worrying about the pro game. Let them do what they will--but leave the rest of us 99.9% alone!
-
Check out the thread about trees that I started after The Heritage. Maybe trees are the answer 😉
-
I'd love it, but why does anyone think the USGA can do anything to force a tournament ball for the Pro Tours? The Tours have stated that they think the longball is an attractive part of their product, and they will keep it no matter what the USGA does. Unless they want to change it, we are stuck with what we have.
The other solution is to stop worrying about the pro game. Let them do what they will--but leave the rest of us 99.9% alone!
Spot on.
-
I'd love it, but why does anyone think the USGA can do anything to force a tournament ball for the Pro Tours? The Tours have stated that they think the longball is an attractive part of their product, and they will keep it no matter what the USGA does. Unless they want to change it, we are stuck with what we have.
The other solution is to stop worrying about the pro game. Let them do what they will--but leave the rest of us 99.9% alone!
I don't get it. Doesn't anyone want to see shot making? I know on TV you don't really get to enjoy it but isn't that what makes the game great. There is no creativity in bombing it. I still remember seeing DLIII hit a low punch slice out of trouble on a par 5 at the BC Open. Next time I took a lesson from Craig Harmon I asked him to show me how to hit that shot. All he said was "remember your not Davis Love"....
-
I'd love it, but why does anyone think the USGA can do anything to force a tournament ball for the Pro Tours? The Tours have stated that they think the longball is an attractive part of their product, and they will keep it no matter what the USGA does. Unless they want to change it, we are stuck with what we have.
The other solution is to stop worrying about the pro game. Let them do what they will--but leave the rest of us 99.9% alone!
I don't get it. Doesn't anyone want to see shot making? I know on TV you don't really get to enjoy it but isn't that what makes the game great. There is no creativity in bombing it. I still remember seeing DLIII hit a low punch slice out of trouble on a par 5 at the BC Open. Next time I took a lesson from Craig Harmon I asked him to show me how to hit that shot. All he said was "remember your not Davis Love"....
You want to see shotmaking? Watch Zach Johnson. Or Furyk. Or Tiger (still). Not sure who the shotmakers of tomorrow will be, but they're out there.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
I actually believe he can.
Davis Love did OK there
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
Absolutely he can win at Harbour Town. The guy won the U.S. Amateur and is one of the very best players in the world. He can win anywhere.
And if you didn't watch him flighting his irons based upon where the pins were and what the wind was doing and what his landing area was like ... well ... you weren't paying much attention. I watched him hit "full nuke" 9-irons, and I watched him flight them lower, and I watched him hold them off to right pins, etc. Bryson knows how to hit all the shots, and he does so more often than people realize because all they see are the 300 to 320 carry drives.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
Absolutely he can win at Harbour Town. The guy won the U.S. Amateur and is one of the very best players in the world. He can win anywhere.
And if you didn't watch him flighting his irons based upon where the pins were and what the wind was doing and what his landing area was like ... well ... you weren't paying much attention. I watched him hit "full nuke" 9-irons, and I watched him flight them lower, and I watched him hold them off to right pins, etc. Bryson knows how to hit all the shots, and he does so more often than people realize because all they see are the 300 to 320 carry drives.
+1 he hit lots of "shots" this weekend.
And he needs such shots because he has a lot of partials where working it, sawing it off or reducing spin allow him to get closer than a full shot ever would.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
I actually believe he can.
Davis Love did OK there
Davis Love was and always has been a shot maker. He loves Harbour Town because he likes to hit shots. Davis was never imo someone who just tried to hit as far as he could. Neither did Tiger.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
Absolutely he can win at Harbour Town. The guy won the U.S. Amateur and is one of the very best players in the world. He can win anywhere.
And if you didn't watch him flighting his irons based upon where the pins were and what the wind was doing and what his landing area was like ... well ... you weren't paying much attention. I watched him hit "full nuke" 9-irons, and I watched him flight them lower, and I watched him hold them off to right pins, etc. Bryson knows how to hit all the shots, and he does so more often than people realize because all they see are the 300 to 320 carry drives.
He won the Am with a completely different game. He would tell you that.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
Absolutely he can win at Harbour Town. The guy won the U.S. Amateur and is one of the very best players in the world. He can win anywhere.
And if you didn't watch him flighting his irons based upon where the pins were and what the wind was doing and what his landing area was like ... well ... you weren't paying much attention. I watched him hit "full nuke" 9-irons, and I watched him flight them lower, and I watched him hold them off to right pins, etc. Bryson knows how to hit all the shots, and he does so more often than people realize because all they see are the 300 to 320 carry drives.
+1 he hit lots of "shots" this weekend.
And he needs such shots because he has a lot of partials where working it, sawing it off or reducing spin allow him to get closer than a full shot ever would.
You know more about it than me Jeff, if he was doing that from the rough then I‘m not going to disagree.
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
Absolutely he can win at Harbour Town. The guy won the U.S. Amateur and is one of the very best players in the world. He can win anywhere.
And if you didn't watch him flighting his irons based upon where the pins were and what the wind was doing and what his landing area was like ... well ... you weren't paying much attention. I watched him hit "full nuke" 9-irons, and I watched him flight them lower, and I watched him hold them off to right pins, etc. Bryson knows how to hit all the shots, and he does so more often than people realize because all they see are the 300 to 320 carry drives.
He won the Am with a completely different game. He would tell you that.
Rob-I think that speaks to his talent level.
-
I don’t disagree with that. What he’s done is amazing. How many guys lost there swing chasing length....
-
Our Recency Bias grows ever more pronunced with the 30 seconds news cycle. They showed Tiger's 7 iron out of the rough at PB Number 6 20 years ago several times this weekend. I remember the commentary at the time about our notions of golf being obsolete. BD deserved to win because he had the best overall game for the week and because he put in the work to do so. But I doubt that in 20 years we will see replays of his shots at WFW (ok, I may not for age related reasons) because 1 does not equal 15 or 18 or even 6. I have no doubt that BD will win some more, but not at those levels.
WFW is one hundred years old. Oakmont is 113 years old. Golf will be fine
Ira
-
Doesn't anyone want to see shot making?
You don't consider hitting a 5.5-degree loft driver 365 yards over super-tall trees down the left side of 16 shot making? Maybe we just need to update the definition.
Know I don’t. Swing as hard as you can and chase it isn’t shot making. Swing a wedge as hard as you can to hack it out of the rough isn’t shotmaking imo. Can he win at Harbour Town doing that?
Absolutely he can win at Harbour Town. The guy won the U.S. Amateur and is one of the very best players in the world. He can win anywhere.
And if you didn't watch him flighting his irons based upon where the pins were and what the wind was doing and what his landing area was like ... well ... you weren't paying much attention. I watched him hit "full nuke" 9-irons, and I watched him flight them lower, and I watched him hold them off to right pins, etc. Bryson knows how to hit all the shots, and he does so more often than people realize because all they see are the 300 to 320 carry drives.
+1 he hit lots of "shots" this weekend.
And he needs such shots because he has a lot of partials where working it, sawing it off or reducing spin allow him to get closer than a full shot ever would.
You know more about it than me Jeff, if he was doing that from the rough then I‘m not going to disagree.
Of course he's not not shaping/flighting shots (much) from the (especially) deep rough. But when he was in the fairway (~45%(?) of the time), he certainly was.
-
Tournament ball - no.
I have to believe with all of the highly specialized technology and computer design available in 2020 we can have one ball that both the average 15 handicapper and the touring professional can play AND REDUCE BALL FLIGHT FOR THE GUYS WITH 110 MPH CLUBHEAD SPEAD AND MAINTAIN THE FEEL OF THE PRO V 1.
Let the designers at Titleist at it for 6-9 months and they'll solve the design challenge; especially if the ball makers can continue to tout "IT'S THE EXACT SAME BALL TIGER OR BDC PLAYS."
-
I thought this was the most boring US Open I have ever seen. I thought it did little to show the architectural "genius" of WF...if it exists at all...Yeah the greens had some slope to them, but every time I looked somebody was chunking the ball from the rough with a wedge.
Kalen is right...tournament ball is needed.
-
I'd love it, but why does anyone think the USGA can do anything to force a tournament ball for the Pro Tours? The Tours have stated that they think the longball is an attractive part of their product, and they will keep it no matter what the USGA does. Unless they want to change it, we are stuck with what we have.
The other solution is to stop worrying about the pro game. Let them do what they will--but leave the rest of us 99.9% alone!
Absolutely!
Why worry about the Pro Tour!
Worry about how you personally will get it in the hole in fewer strokes.
-
I believe that Pinehurst #2 may very well neuter much of the advantage that DeChambeau and other bombers have over straighter but shorter players. At WFW DeChambeau was able with study to determine within a reasonably tight results band how the rough would impact his shots and then plot his way around the course, knowing where to leave his approach greens misses in order to most easily be able to scramble for his pars. That study of the rough was possible because it was reasonably similar hole by hole and shot by shot, and the greens and surrounds were receptive to approaches that got up into the air.
The "rough" on #2 is the opposite - -clumps of wire grass, rutted sandy lies, pine cones and other debris, and a whole lot of almost unplayable plant material make it frequently virtually impossible to have any semblance of control or predictability on the shot. The problem might even be magnified if a super-bomber drives it too close to the green and doesn't leave a full shot, as many lies require a lot of clubbed speed just to get the club through to launch the ball. And then combine that with the style of crowned, exceedingly firm greens and surrounds and the dynamic totally tilts. I can't help but believe that a Webb Simpson from 160 yards in the fairway will beat DeChambeau from 100 but in the "rough" far more often than not.
-
Why was Bryson +10 for the week and 14 shots behind the leaders at Olympia Fields? It was set up similar to U.S. Open conditions?
Bryson has always been an excellent player and a multiple winner on tour. You have to expect he is going to win more by adding 30 yards or more of length and all that strength to power the ball out of the rough but it won't guarantee him wins every week. Furthermore we all know that added distance (at all levels) is changing the game of golf. Some of the change is positive and some is negative. Bryson's win might get courses to look at rough as a hazard differently. When you are that long and that strong it is not much of a deterrent.
-
I believe that Pinehurst #2 may very well neuter much of the advantage that DeChambeau and other bombers have over straighter but shorter players. At WFW DeChambeau was able with study to determine within a reasonably tight results band how the rough would impact his shots and then plot his way around the course, knowing where to leave his approach greens misses in order to most easily be able to scramble for his pars. That study of the rough was possible because it was reasonably similar hole by hole and shot by shot, and the greens and surrounds were receptive to approaches that got up into the air.
The "rough" on #2 is the opposite - -clumps of wire grass, rutted sandy lies, pine cones and other debris, and a whole lot of almost unplayable plant material make it frequently virtually impossible to have any semblance of control or predictability on the shot. The problem might even be magnified if a super-bomber drives it too close to the green and doesn't leave a full shot, as many lies require a lot of clubbed speed just to get the club through to launch the ball. And then combine that with the style of crowned, exceedingly firm greens and surrounds and the dynamic totally tilts. I can't help but believe that a Webb Simpson from 160 yards in the fairway will beat DeChambeau from 100 but in the "rough" far more often than not.
Are the fairways at #2 25 yards wide? I think Bryson had 90+% of his drives within 25 yards width of his target. He may have only hit 40% of the fairways, but a great deal of the misses I saw were pretty close to the fairway and on the correct side.
-
I believe that Pinehurst #2 may very well neuter much of the advantage that DeChambeau and other bombers have over straighter but shorter players. At WFW DeChambeau was able with study to determine within a reasonably tight results band how the rough would impact his shots and then plot his way around the course, knowing where to leave his approach greens misses in order to most easily be able to scramble for his pars. That study of the rough was possible because it was reasonably similar hole by hole and shot by shot, and the greens and surrounds were receptive to approaches that got up into the air.
The "rough" on #2 is the opposite - -clumps of wire grass, rutted sandy lies, pine cones and other debris, and a whole lot of almost unplayable plant material make it frequently virtually impossible to have any semblance of control or predictability on the shot. The problem might even be magnified if a super-bomber drives it too close to the green and doesn't leave a full shot, as many lies require a lot of clubbed speed just to get the club through to launch the ball. And then combine that with the style of crowned, exceedingly firm greens and surrounds and the dynamic totally tilts. I can't help but believe that a Webb Simpson from 160 yards in the fairway will beat DeChambeau from 100 but in the "rough" far more often than not.
Are the fairways at #2 25 yards wide? I think Bryson had 90+% of his drives within 25 yards width of his target. He may have only hit 40% of the fairways, but a great deal of the misses I saw were pretty close to the fairway and on the correct side.
Jim - Not sure exactly what you are asking. First, are you saying that 90% of Bryson's drives were within 12.5 yards of his intended target line? As for #'2 fairway widths, they vary greatly, opening and pinching hole by hole but tending to get tighter the longer the drive until they open up near the green. With the flanks of the fairways not being irrigated, they play narrower than their actual width. And there's no graduated rough that penalizes shots more as you miss the fairway by greater amounts. You can be near-dead just 5' off the edge of the fairway and then find a perfectly smooth firm sandy lie 20 yards further off target. It's totally random. My sense with anyone not hitting a lot of fairways is that the odds of squeezing out pars is a lot lower on #2 even with extraordinary length off the tee than it would be on a parkland course like WFW, and the even slightly inaccurate bomber will be subject to death by paper cut under hyper dry/firm conditions.