[Brent Hutto]

Brent, going by experience and caddying for the 20 handi.  When I got them to lay up to their full wedge shot, they did much better than from 60 yards.  They limited their chances of boning the shot over the green from 60 yards. 

Yes, I see that all the time with the guys I play with (even the 8, 9, 10 handicappers).

They need to practice their 60-yard wedge shots. I'll bet most of those guys have hit 100 times as many full-swing wedge and short iron shots on the driving range as they ever have hit 40, 50, 60 yard ones. No surprise they are less likely to duff the shot they actually are (relatively) good at hitting.

I've not been taking lessons or practicing at all these past few years. Recently I visited my teaching pro buddy and showed some stats from my play over the last few months and I was clearly hitting the ball closer to the hole and fewer bad shots from 100 yards or 120 yards than from 60 yards or 80 yards. Definite pattern there.

We spent 20 minutes working on 3/4 swing shots with my 54 and 50 degree wedges and I've done just a little bit of practice since then on hitting those shots. Just that little bit of work has reversed the pattern. I'm now hit it at least as close from 60 or 80 (3/4 swings) as from 100 or 120 (full swings) and a few times I've hit 80-yarders real close.

It doesn't take a whole lot of practice. But it takes more than zero practice which is more than most 20-handicappers have ever done.

[BCowan]

''I get that.....but the course does offer plenty of holes in the 330-370 yard range that could lead to 60-yard pitches; it's that Josh chooses not to play them. Maybe those holes aren't as "good" or "challenging" or "interesting" at those distances, but that's a design fault then, isn't it? After all, there are dull and easy 60-yard pitch shots and ones that offer more challenge.''

+1

[Josh Tarble]

Phil,
I definitely realize I am in the minority and don't mean to lump everyone into one box.  But moving down a tee, where one would expect to see far more in that range, actually leaves less in that arbitrary 330-370 range.  

All that I'm getting at, is mainly Jud's point #1 - unimaginative design.  Certainly there are exceptions.  But are we seeing less of these shortish part 4s because the designers 1) think the shot is too easy or 2) it's too hard to design an interesting hole of that length?

[Jason Thurman]

One of the cool things about my 91 year old home course is that we have holes of yardages in roughly 30 yard increments from around 140 yards all the way up to 570. It's only 6600 yards from the back, but there's enough variation in the strategies available for different holes that it requires a lot of different shot types and strategies despite its modest length. The holes with the most options, inevitably, are the ones in that 320-400 yard range that is losing emphasis in modern design. We have five holes of that distance from our members tees, and also five of that distance from the black tees (though the five is not quite the same). I hit anything between a 5 iron and a driver off those tees on any given day depending on wind direction and course conditions.

Niall, that's where your comment misses the mark. The premise of this thread isn't specifically about the 60 yard shot. It's about the way that modern designers frequently build holes that theoretically require two full swings from anyone playing the correct set of tees and executing well. The 60 yard pitch will exist as long as golf is played, as individual players will always find a way to top an approach to a 450 yard hole and create one for themselves. But that's not what we're really talking about.

We're really talking about the way that modern design avoids holes that test the 60 yard shot for players who execute well, and the overemphasis on full swing ballstriking as the lone measuring stick of a player. The result of such design philosophy is the gradual elimination of holes in the 320-400 yard range from the back tees, which are generally the ones that provide the most options for a player. A byproduct of eliminating those holes is the gradual marginalization of the mental game and the finesse game as elements of golf that should be tested. The more holes of <310 or >400 yards get built, the more it gets hammered into people's heads that golf is about testing the mechanics of the full swing, and not about creating shots or strategizing your way through a hole.

Don't get hung up too much on the yardages. That's not really the point. The point is that many of today's courses simply disregard the 60 yard shot as a legitimate component of the game, and relegate it to something that only high handicappers and people who drive it in the trees should hit.

[PCCraig]

On some classic golf courses, no. My home course has 2 or 3 of them on par-4's (assuming a quality drive) and they are a nice way to break up the monotony of longer holes, even if said pitch shots require well executed shots.

Do 60-yard pitch shots on par-5's count? I get those a lot.

[Phil McDade]

Josh:

I probably see fewer courses than most anyone on GCA, so I may not be the best person to ask.

But, channeling my inner Doak, I'd say unimaginative design is probably the chief culprit, and my guess is that's driven -- in modern design -- by clients demanding courses at X,XXX length (almost always at 7,000 yards+), and a pretty standard distribution of 10-4-4 (par 4s, par 3s, and par 5s), and perhaps even as strict as 5-2-2 on the front nine and 5-2-2 on the back nine (see, um, Purgatory....). So right from the get-go, designers are probably hemmed in on how they can design certain holes. I haven't played Pacific Dunes, but I've read enough about it (and seen the photos posted here and elsewhere), and it's the rare client that's willing to let the course designer do something as bold as back-to-back par 3s. My hunch is that tolerance "yields" the ability to design interesting, short par 4s that demand short pitch shots -- and PacDunes is generally acclaimed as a course that can provide the golfer with several exacting pitch shots in the neighborhood of 60 yards.

I've done some course tours here on GCA of some courses -- some old, some new -- that to me provide interesting short pitch shots for approaches. I'll dig them up and post them later.

[Jud_T]

I think you guys are underestimating the effect turf and conditioning have on the 60 yard shot, and hence, possibly these design issues.  If you have a 60 yard shot where the ground game isn't a viable option, then you're just testing a full swing with a lob wedge.  All pitch shots, up to 150 yards, become potentially interesting finesse shots when played on links turf.  There's nothing more frustrating than hitting a seemingly perfectly executed bump and run shot only to watch it come up well short after the morning sprinkler dousing at some dogtrack.

p.s.  see quote below

[Brent Hutto]

There's also the fact that so many courses have wet, thin lies in the fairway 60 yards out. A less than full swing with a SW or GW, trying to play a 3/4 shot, requires good hand-eye coordination on a wet-and-tight lie.

[Niall C]

Jason

With respect it isn’t me that’s getting hung up on yardages, I didn’t mention them once. It’s you that’s talking about a specific range of length for a hole presumably on the basis of assumed criteria eg. length of tee shot. I was merely pointing out that such assumptions are bogus for the vast majority.

Of course I could be wrong and perhaps you are referring to courses where every hole has either sand/water/rough 60 yards from the centre of the green in which case please do accept my apology.

Niall

[Jason Thurman]

It’s you that’s talking about a specific range of length for a hole presumably on the basis of assumed criteria eg. length of tee shot. I was merely pointing out that such assumptions are bogus for the vast majority.

I disagree with the brown part. When I play a round on a course with a group of diverse handicaps, we can usually agree on which holes are "short," "medium-length," and "long." The vast majority can define and agree upon what constitutes a drive-and-pitch hole when they see it, even if they don't always execute the hole as such.

Even if you don't agree with that, surely you can see that eliminating holes between 320 and 400 yards constitutes a large gap in the variety of challenges a course can present to any player, regardless of his particular skillset and the conditions on a given day. The byproduct of eliminating those holes is the death of the 60 yard pitch for the strong player. It may be the death of the 9 iron approach for a weaker player, but regardless, it's still an unfortunate case of the architecture systematically marginalizing an entire type of shot.

[Josh Tarble]

Don't get hung up too much on the yardages. That's not really the point. The point is that many of today's courses simply disregard the 60 yard shot as a legitimate component of the game, and relegate it to something that only high handicappers and people who drive it in the trees should hit.

Jason,
Thanks for summing up my point far better than I have been able to do.  I don't understand why modern designers are so quick to dismiss the challenge of these half shots is all.

The best two holes at my course (which I'm lucky and is an old design) are the shortest two on the course.  So many times I stand on the tee thinking birdie and walk off the green wondering how I slapped up a double bogey.  They aren't pushovers and are very strategic in design, it doesn't matter that they're only 340 and 365 yards, they don't need length to be interesting.

[Carl Rogers]

I have a hard time following this thread without putting the 60 yard shot into a larger context of:
-what shot preceded the 60 yarder
-what turf conditions are present
-lie, relatively level, side hill, uphill, down hill etc
-green surface target ... slope, speed, size ... does the player have a 'safe' option?
-wind (always)

in terms of holes we all have at least a media knowledge of, ANGC 13 & 15. the 60 yarder at 13 seems much more doable than at 15 unless the pin at 13 is back right.

[Mark Smolens]

A 20-handicapper who is depending on controlling how much a 120-yard shot spins is going to be one severely disappointed 20-handicapper.

From 120 yards a 20-handicapper is trying to get the ball to end up on the putting surface. And if it gets within 25 feet of the hole, that's a 90th percentile shot. Spin is a "take what you get" type of thing for 20-handicappers. Especially 20-handicappers hitting an 8-iron or 9-iron from that distance.

Brent, going by experience and caddying for the 20 handi.  When I got them to lay up to their full wedge shot, they did much better than from 60 yards.  They limited their chances of boning the shot over the green from 60 yards. 

Ben,

If you take that 20 handicap player -- or even a lousy 4.5 index player who hasn't played to that handicap in forever! -- to a practice hole and drop two buckets of balls, one at 120 yards and one at 60, and total the distance from the hole from each bucket. . . my money will always be on the 60 yard shot. It's certainly easy to describe anecdotally the times you saw your players skullbleeping their lob wedge over the green, but total the yardage (and it won't be measured in feet) for these two buckets and the shorter shot will win 99% of the time.

[jeffwarne]

Brent, going by experience and caddying for the 20 handi.  When I got them to lay up to their full wedge shot, they did much better than from 60 yards.  They limited their chances of boning the shot over the green from 60 yards. 

Yes, I see that all the time with the guys I play with (even the 8, 9, 10 handicappers).

They need to practice their 60-yard wedge shots. I'll bet most of those guys have hit 100 times as many full-swing wedge and short iron shots on the driving range as they ever have hit 40, 50, 60 yard ones. No surprise they are less likely to duff the shot they actually are (relatively) good at hitting.

I've not been taking lessons or practicing at all these past few years. Recently I visited my teaching pro buddy and showed some stats from my play over the last few months and I was clearly hitting the ball closer to the hole and fewer bad shots from 100 yards or 120 yards than from 60 yards or 80 yards. Definite pattern there.

We spent 20 minutes working on 3/4 swing shots with my 54 and 50 degree wedges and I've done just a little bit of practice since then on hitting those shots. Just that little bit of work has reversed the pattern. I'm now hit it at least as close from 60 or 80 (3/4 swings) as from 100 or 120 (full swings) and a few times I've hit 80-yarders real close.

It doesn't take a whole lot of practice. But it takes more than zero practice which is more than most 20-handicappers have ever done.

+1 +1

Amazing the myths amateurs are led to believe such as "lay up to a full shot"
being able to get closer to the pin from full swing distance than 1/2 swing distance is not an endorsement of your long game, but an indictment of your short game
practice your short game and soon, the closer to the green you get, the better. (with certain exceptions)

[BCowan]

A 20-handicapper who is depending on controlling how much a 120-yard shot spins is going to be one severely disappointed 20-handicapper.

From 120 yards a 20-handicapper is trying to get the ball to end up on the putting surface. And if it gets within 25 feet of the hole, that's a 90th percentile shot. Spin is a "take what you get" type of thing for 20-handicappers. Especially 20-handicappers hitting an 8-iron or 9-iron from that distance.

Brent, going by experience and caddying for the 20 handi.  When I got them to lay up to their full wedge shot, they did much better than from 60 yards.  They limited their chances of boning the shot over the green from 60 yards. 

Ben,

If you take that 20 handicap player -- or even a lousy 4.5 index player who hasn't played to that handicap in forever! -- to a practice hole and drop two buckets of balls, one at 120 yards and one at 60, and total the distance from the hole from each bucket. . . my money will always be on the 60 yard shot. It's certainly easy to describe anecdotally the times you saw your players skullbleeping their lob wedge over the green, but total the yardage (and it won't be measured in feet) for these two buckets and the shorter shot will win 99% of the time.

Mark,

   If the course being played on has tight cut firm bent fairways, and with SW having 10-14 degs of bounce, I'll take whatever the 20 handi cap's full wedge over 60 yards any day.  A wedge has 4-6 degs of bounce.  Bounce kills 20 handi's.  If they are playing on rye/Bermuda  fairways that make the ball sit up, then 60 yards isn't that big of a deal with boning the shot.  Most 20 handi's don't have time to practice, hence why they are 20 handi's.  They may just play to get away from their wife.   

[jeffwarne]

A 20-handicapper who is depending on controlling how much a 120-yard shot spins is going to be one severely disappointed 20-handicapper.

From 120 yards a 20-handicapper is trying to get the ball to end up on the putting surface. And if it gets within 25 feet of the hole, that's a 90th percentile shot. Spin is a "take what you get" type of thing for 20-handicappers. Especially 20-handicappers hitting an 8-iron or 9-iron from that distance.

Brent, going by experience and caddying for the 20 handi.  When I got them to lay up to their full wedge shot, they did much better than from 60 yards.  They limited their chances of boning the shot over the green from 60 yards. 

Ben,

If you take that 20 handicap player -- or even a lousy 4.5 index player who hasn't played to that handicap in forever! -- to a practice hole and drop two buckets of balls, one at 120 yards and one at 60, and total the distance from the hole from each bucket. . . my money will always be on the 60 yard shot. It's certainly easy to describe anecdotally the times you saw your players skullbleeping their lob wedge over the green, but total the yardage (and it won't be measured in feet) for these two buckets and the shorter shot will win 99% of the time.

Mark,

   If the course being played on has tight cut firm bent fairways, and with SW having 10-14 degs of bounce, I'll take whatever the 20 handi cap's full wedge over 60 yards any day.  A wedge has 4-6 degs of bounce.  Bounce kills 20 handi's.  If they are playing on rye/Bermuda  fairways that make the ball sit up, then 60 yards isn't that big of a deal with boning the shot.  Most 20 handi's don't have time to practice, hence why they are 20 handi's.  They may just play to get away from their wife.   

BCowan,
LACK of bounce kills 20 handicappers.
Bounce is your friend-it allows one to actually not hit the ball and still produce a successful shot.

Thanks to the USGA and their infinite wisdom of going after the short game (   ( wedges and long putters) while hot drivers and balls abound-total nonsense but I digress......
I hear people were quitting the game because the short game was too easy. (so easy in fact that bigger holes are needed)

I've learned more about wedges in the last three months than I ever wanted to know, all in an effort to duplicate the feel of my old Eye 2's, which are awesome in turf and in sand.
Ping makes a legal Eye-2copy called the XG, but I find it totally different in look,feel and flight

Those Eye-2's have a TON of bounce, but the grinds were designed where a good player could still hit a high variety of shots, yet still have forgiveness for the higher handicapper.
I've just put a wedgein play with 27 (not a typo) degrees of bounce, but it has heel relief and can be used for a variety of shots due to it's unique grind.
It's no Eye-2 but it is closer.

[BCowan]

Jeff,

    I will disagree with you till the cows come home.  You now are talking about special grinds.  I've had the heal bounce grinded off mine, and it makes a good difference.  A 20 handi plays off the rack and doesn't know what bounce even is.  It is much easier hitting a controlled full shot then a half shot off tight bent fairways.  Even for many 10 handi's.  You only need lots of bounce for that boutique white fluffy Florida sand traps.  We are also talking about bounce and a 20 handi hitting a half shot 60 yards of a tight lie.  I'd get them to produce much better shots hitting a smooth wedge all day. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I've worn out the grooves on about a dozen L, S and W Ping Beryllium Eye 2's

I tried the new L and S Pings, but you're right, they don't feel or play the same.
To me, they feel heavy.

I don't know why Ping doesn't bring the Eye2's back

[JMEvensky]

I don't know why Ping doesn't bring the Eye2's back

Because they're not new and improved.

Agree with everyone that the Eye 2 lob wedge was the greatest thing since sliced bread--almost like cheating from bunkers.

[jeffwarne]

I don't know why Ping doesn't bring the Eye2's back

Because they're not new and improved.

Agree with everyone that the Eye 2 lob wedge was the greatest thing since sliced bread--almost like cheating from bunkers.

I actually have used the Eye 2 pitching wedge as well for years.
In fact every iron set I've ordered the past 10-20 years I didn't even bother to order a PW.

I've moved away from the Ping Eye 2 L wedge as I prefer one of their newer models, but it's till pre 2010 so it's also illegal for most tournament play.

Hopefully now enough of us saps have bought the XG, PIng will feel they can introduce a real Eye2 copy, that actually feels, looks and plays like one.

[Niall C]

It’s you that’s talking about a specific range of length for a hole presumably on the basis of assumed criteria eg. length of tee shot. I was merely pointing out that such assumptions are bogus for the vast majority.

I disagree with the brown part. When I play a round on a course with a group of diverse handicaps, we can usually agree on which holes are "short," "medium-length," and "long." The vast majority can define and agree upon what constitutes a drive-and-pitch hole when they see it, even if they don't always execute the hole as such.

Even if you don't agree with that, surely you can see that eliminating holes between 320 and 400 yards constitutes a large gap in the variety of challenges a course can present to any player, regardless of his particular skillset and the conditions on a given day. The byproduct of eliminating those holes is the death of the 60 yard pitch for the strong player. It may be the death of the 9 iron approach for a weaker player, but regardless, it's still an unfortunate case of the architecture systematically marginalizing an entire type of shot.

Jason

I note you've gone from the 60 yard pitch being dead to the 60 yard pitch being dead for the good player, and that presumably assumes that the good player doesn't play to give himself a 60 yard pitch, and indeed is consistant in how far he hits it.

When you play with your friends of different abilities, presumably they hit the ball different length, and therefore irrespective of the length of holes on the course the chances are one of the four is going to have a 60 yard pitch or there abouts on more than one occasion, correct ?

That being the case, is the architect ignoring that golfer and onl;y designing for the good golfer ie. using set assumptions as you seem to be doing, or is it possible he's also bearing in mind that not everyone plays standard consistant golf as you seem to suggest ?

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Add to your argument the fact that golfers, golfers of all abilities, miss shots, leaving them 60 yards to the hole.

[Jason Thurman]

Niall, you (and Pat) are confusing execution with design.

Architects design holes with strategies in mind. For instance, at the US Open in a month or two, competitors will play the 380-ish yard 3rd hole. For virtually any player playing the correct set of tees, it is a short par 4 that with a short approach. Donald Ross obviously laid the hole out with this in mind, as he bunkered the landing zone around 60-80 yards short of the green to challenge positioning for players setting up that pitch.

Of course, some players will top their drive and hit a wood for their approach. When that 100+ year old man played last year, he probably didn't hit a pitch until his 3rd or 4th shot. But that doesn't mean that the hole's strategy isn't designed as a drive-and-pitch par 4.

Now, what makes No. 2 interesting in this discussion is that many of its holes have hazards and other obstacles built in the area from 50-100 yards from the green, even on longer holes. I would attribute this to the fact that No. 2 was built at a time when equipment and conditions limited the aerial game. The average player couldn't just fly the ball to the green on approach shots in those days, and consequently more consideration was given to challenging precision on half and 3/4 swings (and challenging a player's ability to get into position for those swings).

Contrast that with the design at Valhalla during this year's PGA Championship, a course with far fewer architectural features in the "pitch zone" between 50-100 yards from the green. By the time that course was built (1980s), the modern player had relegated the 60 yard shot to something for high handicappers and people who missed the fairway off the tee. Course designers were complicit, as they built few "drive-and-pitch" holes. Valhalla has two by my count, which is actually a lot compared to many modern designs. People still hit 60 yard pitch shots at Valhalla. I've hit a few myself. But the course isn't designed to make those shots particularly interesting, nor it is designed to challenge a player's ability to get into position to hit them. That's a real tragedy for the weaker player, and I also think it's unfortunate to see modern courses that only require elite players to test their intermediate wedge shots challenged when they get out of position. I personally would like to see those finesse shots challenged a little more often.

[Josh Stevens]

If I recall on what passed for the 1st hole at RM for the recent world cup, the little 60 yard pitch into there had them in fits. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()