Do clubs with lower centers of gravity that produce higher flight

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jim
I think you are absolutely correct, that is the positive aspect of hybrid clubs...but the question still remains does this alter the way architects should start designing their holes?
Hopefully not, after all the player still has to hit ths hot in the first place...the hybrid may make it easier, but as you questioned the penalty for faliure will remain the same.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
In your example of GC #12, doesn't the hybrid give the "...broad spectrum of golfers who populate clubs..."  a chance to be more bold and try a shot that only the professional or very good player could hit?

Jim, I think that's part of the problem.
Hi-tech has allowed golfers to hit shots beyond their ability.
It's allowing golfers to "buy" a game.[/color]

Is that a bad thing?

You could look at it both ways, but, on balance, I think it's a bad thing because it allows the equipment to overcome the architecture, rather than the golfer.[/color]

Is there any less of a penalty if they miss?

Probably.

Their ball won't run into as much trouble with a high trajectory shot.

I've noticed that the further you miss your target, the more severe the penalty ..... usually.[/color]

MWP,

I don't believe the penalty is the same.

Take a low flighted 2-iron that misses # 12 short or long.
Now compare the consequences when a hybrid club, with high trajectory misses that green, short or long.

I think the missed 2-iron suffers more dire consequences, and, there's no doubt that the hybrid is EASIER to hit.

[Pete Lavallee]

I think the missed 2-iron suffers more dire consequences, and, there's no doubt that the hybrid is EASIER to hit.

When facing that same shot into a strong wind would you choose the 2 iron or hybdrid? Oh wait, you already answered that question.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
We all 'buy' some game. Honestly, how many people do you know know that still play with antiquated equipment. You might see the occasional 2-iron, persimmon 4wood or putter, but those are exceptions.  

I don't think your position, that equipment ..."allows the golfer to overcome the architecture" acknowledges that technology only gives the average player a better chance of dealing with it. I will agree that the result of a shot played with a lofted utility club is easier to hit than one by the corresponding iron, but that's an 'advantage ' that must still be realized.  

I tend to agree that a running ball will probably get into more trouble than one that's been carried, but either type of shot suffers from missed direction.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
We all 'buy' some game. Honestly, how many people do you know know that still play with antiquated equipment. You might see the occasional 2-iron, persimmon 4wood or putter, but those are exceptions.  

I don't think your position, that equipment ..."allows the golfer to overcome the architecture" acknowledges that technology only gives the average player a better chance of dealing with it.

I will agree that the result of a shot played with a lofted utility club is easier to hit than one by the corresponding iron, but that's an 'advantage ' that must still be realized.  

Jim,

That's my point.

If a feature was intended to interface with the golfer and the equipment rendered that interfacing null and void, or, greatly diminished, how does the architect replicate it under today's conditions ?

But, here's the rub.

With the increased popularity of golf, very small greens can't withstand the wear and tear of excessive traffic, so that line of defense would appear to be unavailable, UNLESS, the greens within greens concept was employed,

But, here's the rub

With increased green speeds, greens have been softened.
The ability to construct greens within greens in the context of substantial differentiation between the targeted putting surfaces has been compromised, diluted.

So, what's an architect to do ?[/color]

I tend to agree that a running ball will probably get into more trouble than one that's been carried, but either type of shot suffers from missed direction.

But a running ball suffers more from missed direction with fronting bunkers or water hazards.[/color]
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think the missed 2-iron suffers more dire consequences, and, there's no doubt that the hybrid is EASIER to hit.

When facing that same shot into a strong wind would you choose the 2 iron or hybdrid? Oh wait, you already answered that question.

Pete,

I don't have a choice, I only carry a 2-iron.  I have NO hybrids in my bag, unless you count the putter that I'm reconfiguring with the two thumbs grip.

[mike_malone]

 I think these club's greatest effects are lighter wallets.

[Brent Hutto]

What is it that today's decent player can accomplish with a hybrid 2-iron replacement that he could not have accomplish decades earlier with a 7-wood? It seems to me that the hybrid lets him land it softer than a 2-iron but keep it lower than a 7-wood, no?

To my thinking hybrids simply offer a way of splitting the difference between long irons and fairway woods for strong players. Some models are nigh indistinguishable from a large, game-improvement, cavity-back long iron and others are basically short-shafted fairway woods. I don't feel that they are a fundamentally new type of implement and as such I certainly don't believe they have any more effect on architecture than some old guy's 9-wood or a Ping Eye2 long iron.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What is it that today's decent player can accomplish with a hybrid 2-iron replacement that he could not have accomplish decades earlier with a 7-wood? It seems to me that the hybrid lets him land it softer than a 2-iron but keep it lower than a 7-wood, no?

A hybrid and a 7-wood are part of the same species.

Their genesis lies within the same metal wood class.[/color]

To my thinking hybrids simply offer a way of splitting the difference between long irons and fairway woods for strong players.

Some models are nigh indistinguishable from a large, game-improvement, cavity-back long iron and others are basically short-shafted fairway woods.

I don't feel that they are a fundamentally new type of implement and as such I certainly don't believe they have any more effect on architecture than some old guy's 9-wood or a Ping Eye2 long iron.

Perhaps you need to observe the flight of more 9-woods and 2-irons until the concept of the performance differences between the clubs, in the context of the aerial assault on the architecture, comes to you.

What's your handicap and do you use a hybrid ?[/color]

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Both sides of the equation can be fully argued.
In some places smaller greens would work, there is less play. Greens within greens works too, even if they are softer.We are talkng about defenses aimed at the majority of players, not the 'very best'.
You said: .."a running ball suffers more from missed direction with fronting bunkers or water hazards". I think it might suffer more from being mis-hit, as to distance,  but so would the carried shot.

What's an architect to do? I think they've been doing it. It wouldn't be hard to name some newer courses that are not considered pushovers.