[TEPaul]

Sully:

One day I spent about a half hour up on top of that fairway measuring things every which way to Sunday and it isn't any more than 8 yards shorter getting down the right side then say the middle. Left of middle one needs to be careful that the ball doesn't just keep on going left into trouble.

Long hitters don't think about that 8 or so yard difference but I sure did. Over the years I was probably up as much as down from the back and a bunch of times all I needed was another yard or even a foot or two and I was down. Today almost nobody who hits it solid can't get down almost all the time.

If they take those tees back 50+ yards a lot more golfers will be going through what I always did on that hole and maybe that's exactly what they're intending to accompish with the tee length addition on this hole. What else would they be thinking they'd accomplish?

I'll tell you another thing nobody's mentioned yet on this thread----eg the second shot.

When the course is firm and fast "through the green" and on the greens from up on the top of that fairway that can be a pretty tricky approach shot. One basically can't even hit the green or much onto it in those conditions or the ball will generally just get right over.

I know from experience from many many shots from up there that it's one of those shots that your really have to trust your instincts about what the ground will do even if you hit it exactly the way you visualize it and the trajectory (height) has a whole lot to do with that.

[archie_struthers]

 


JES ...Jamie et al   I think the new tee will be great....if they remove the new bunkers....they are superfluous...you could make the same argument on #9 and the new bunkers there.. they look fabulous and old ... but ...the old shot from the right corner of the fairway was strategic...but I digress...

this being said the angle of the tee shot on #4 is so much more of a decision than #9 ever was...putting the new bunkers in just eliminated the decision for some shorter hitters...

these bunkers would't have affected  Watson...or Sigel in the 70's early 80's..they just flew it to the bottom...yet a great amateur like Ed Tutwiler would shape his tee shot depending on the wind ...he had hands like few who ever played the game.. his control of trajectory was unbelievable..

With the new bunkers I fear he might have played really conservatively...afraid that a little hang on might bury and force a sideways wedge...is this good?
.
 Tutwiler  wasn't short by any means..nor was Crenshaw ...yet the advantage enjoyed by the sper long hitters of tha day  was minimized by the turbo boost available on the right side of the fairway

If my guess of how the new tee might play is right.."Tut" or Gentle Ben would have to hit it short left..while it would have no impact on the Watsons and Sigels of the world...unless it goes back to 500 yards. ..it's really hard to imagine just how long the shot will play.. sometimes holes you thought would play long don't ....another interesting quirk to a game that is far from an exact science...more bunkering ='s less ground game...which I believe will be the intent of the new tee...to bring the ground back into play on the second shot

I'm still thinking removal of the "new " bunkers ...which may be planned already...will prove out..  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim, Phil, etc.,

Hogan's 2nd shot was not 230 yards, but closer to 210.  

But, since you don't seem to believe that I can channel the great Ben Hogan, I'll have to rely on another great man.

From the interview with Linc Roden on this site;

In 1948 Hogan published Power Golf, before his accident and when he was swinging hard with his hook grip. Of course, steel shafts were in play. Ed Dudley, PGA President, called Hogan …'One of the longest hitters the game has ever known.' Check out Hogan’s 'regular' distance:

Driver 265

One Iron 195

Three Iron 175

Five Iron 155

Seven Iron 135

Nine Iron 115


Compare these distances with today’s best players! A hole Flynn designed to play with a drive with carry and roll and a full fairway wood may now be played with a drive and short iron, both shots with almost no roll!

In the 1940’s, the longest distance for a par 4 was 439 yards. The USGA then increased the distance to 449, 450, 469 and now even longer for some holes. Merion, Augusta, Huntingdon Valley and St. Andrews’ Old Course have all built back tees!

Flynn talked about having to increase the length of courses to 7,500 and even 8,000 yards if the distance to be gotten with the ball continues to increase.

If we were to design a course which required today’s best players to hit the shots which Flynn envisioned in 1927, we would probably be well over 8,000 yards if that hypothetical course was hard and dry! Take Flynn’s standards for a course quoted above and see how long you feel the course would have to be.

Guys,

Ben Hogan wouldn't recognize the distances that people carry the ball today.   I don't know if this is true but legend has it that short-hitting Paul Runyan would actually chip down near the front tee for his drive on 18 and then hit a 3-wood second out of the quarry, knowing he couldn't make the carry from the back tee with his driver.

To base any argument on making a hole play as it did before 1980 is fundamentally flawed by definition and generally an exercise in futility.

[wsmorrison]

Hogan's famous 1 iron (or 2 iron) was his 36th hole of the day.  He was tired and stories are told that he almost walked off the course after 13.  In the playoff the next day, I believe he hit driver and 4 iron.  I don't know how/if the weather differed those two days.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

As we were discussing offline, Hogan had no more than 210 downhill for his second shot on Sunday, and was torn between cutting a 4-wood to a right hand hole location, or playing a straight 1-iron (or was it a 2-iron?  I don't recall) into the middle of the green.   In either case, that would be pretty consistent with what Mr. Roden quotes from Hogan's book and I think that exemplifies exactly how much difference exists in distance at the pro level from 1950 to today.

[AndrewB]

Golf At Merion has a quote from Hogan stating that he thought about cutting a four wood but reconsidered and hoped to reach the front of the green with a one iron, which he did.

It also states that in the playoff he hit a "huge drive to the heart of the fairway" and only had a five iron in for his second shot.

[TEPaul]

The discussions of what Hogan hit from where at Merion is interesting in the over-all distance increase question.

As usual it seems most people only fixate on the distance increase of the driver today compared to back then.

However, a review of the distances Hogan hit his various irons shows that the distance increase good players hit their irons today compared to back then is commensurately as great or greater than the driver.

And obviously the bottomline and point of that is if golf courses want to get the same clubs for approach shots back in the hands of today's good players (recreate the old shot values and such) compared to years ago they may actually have to double their planned tee length addtions.

And we all know on most holes that would be a virtual impossibility, not to even mention the fact it would begin to skew original hazards and such that created the basic options and strategies on the mid-bodies of golf holes.


Even a star of 25 years after Hogan---eg Johnny Miller claims he hit his 7 iron 150 yards.

Today good and strong players probably comfortably hit their 7 irons 180-190 in neutral conditions.

Even a player such as I who was short off the tee but not as commensurately short with irons and is completely broken down now by wine and weeds and age and two rotator cuff tears can hit a 7 iron 150 yards today.

I might have to shut it down some and swing in my "mid-overdrive mode" with a bit of a draw but I can still do it without much problem.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

That's completely correct and I'm not sure that young, strong guys like Sully realize how much of a distance gap we're talking about between the top players of today and yesterday.

Of course, to you and me and guys our age and older it sort of happened over a long period of time so we weren't as cognizant of it, which is how that cat sort of got out of the bag in the first place.

But, a few years back I had one of those eye-opening experiences when I went back to play the course we played our high-school matches on and through my early 20's.   Now, mind you, I'm not anywhere near with keeping up with the latest in club technology, but even just with a Titanium Titleist D-something, smallish-headed driver and modern balls, as a pudgy, lazy, deskbound 40-something year old I pounded the ball to places 20-30 yards beyond anywhere I'd ever been as a young, tall, lithe, athletic, flexible 20-something in the 1970s.

I felt like I was cheating.

[Phil Benedict]

I'm not going to challenge Mike on Hogan trivia but here's a claim the shot was 220-yards.

Hogan's iron distances are just incredible.  I think Jack Nicklaus said his 5-iron yardage was 175, because he had to dial down his swing to avoid putting too much spin on the ball.

http://www.golfspast.com/page/E/PROD/ABH/BHSC/

[JESII]

As to Hogan's iron distances and the numbers Mr. Roden posted...do you think those were his full distance, or perhaps his controlled distance? I would venture to say that if asked, Hogan was capable of hitting a 6 iron 190 or 130 with equal control...how would that factor into your analysis there? I think this is the greatest difference in ball striking today...the equipment actually discourages the finesse shots so none of the good players have them...the old equipment discouraged full blooded shots so everyone had the finesse shots to some degree...

Are there any stories of Hogan reaching a par 5 in two that measured longer than 500 yards? I'll bet there are...




Back to #4 at PV...the approach from the top of the hill will be really cool, in part because of the very slight hog's back in the 20 yards of fairway leading up to the green...combined with the fact that it it one of the few greens you'll play that missing over is probably better 80% of the time...

[Phil Benedict]

Hogan reached the 15th at Augusta in 1966 with a four-wood.  That was exactly 500-yards.  He was 54-years old.

By the way, there's some neat Hogan video over at GolfDigest.com.  Maybe not as exciting as the Amy Fisher material at the Huffington post, but more appealing to a crowd like this.

[Mike_Cirba]

Hogan reached the 15th at Augusta in 1966 with a four-wood.  That was exactly 500-yards.  He was 54-years old.

By the way, there's some neat Hogan video over at GolfDigest.com.  Maybe not as exciting as the Amy Fisher material at the Huffington post, but more appealing to a crowd like this.

Phil,

That just proves my point...thank you.  

The 15th at ANGC plays 500 yards, all downhill, and back in those days you could turbo-ramp the drive off the mounds on the right, cascading it way down the hill.   I'm imagining with a dry, under-irrigated fairway of the time, he probably drove it close to 300 yards.

The fact he needed a 4-wood to reach on this downhill 200 yard second shot is very much like the Merion example.

[JESII]

Didn't you just quote, as gospel, Hogan's 195 club being his 1 iron?


What did Sarazen reach the 15th with? 30 years earlier? Was that from 200 also?

I was told by a member that Hogan was the first person to reach the par 5 at Northampton (in Easton) that runs along the back side of the maintenance shed...#2 or 3 I think...about 550 uphill...how much shorter was that hole 50 years ago?

[JESII]

Pure speculation on my part...but...what would you guys think of the current tee being lowered to just above the fronting, right side flanking and rear ground levels? This is 10 - 20 feet lower on an already significantly uphill shot...

that would obviously retain the routing flow currently in place, but it would make the tee shot much more difficult for a large portion of the players...the upside is that it would reduce the distance a new tee would have to go backwards...

[wsmorrison]

What is the 4th hole scoring average and scoring spectrum during the Crump Cup?    Before anyone proposes tee lengthening on this hole, shouldn't the scoring statistics be known?  My guess is that the club is aware of the numbers, but we certainly aren't.  Any debate as to whether something should be done to bring back shot values should be considered in an informed way--it may not even be necessary.  The lengthening of holes doesn't always improve the hole even if recapturing shot values is the driving (pun intended) force.

If the club is interested in holding something beyond the Crump Cup (Walker Cup or whatever) then lengthening might be necessary once all the ramifications are carefully considered.  But if the club is interested in nothing beyond the prestigious Crump Cups and it isn't a pushover in a scoring analysis, then why do anything let alone something that might separate even scratch golfers too much?

[Mike_Cirba]

Didn't you just quote, as gospel, Hogan's 195 club being his 1 iron?


What did Sarazen reach the 15th with? 30 years earlier? Was that from 200 also?

I was told by a member that Hogan was the first person to reach the par 5 at Northampton (in Easton) that runs along the back side of the maintenance shed...#2 or 3 I think...about 550 uphill...how much shorter was that hole 50 years ago?

Jim,

For Hogan's second shot on Sunday at Merion, from about 210 yards downhill, accounts state that he was torn between trying to cut a 4-wood to the right hand hole location, or taking the 1-iron (or 2, can't recall) into the middle of the green.

He chose the latter, obviously.  If I remember from those days, the 5 wood was about distance equivalent of a 2-iron, only with higher trajectory, and a 4-wood and 1-iron would have been similar as well.  

It was probably the 2-iron he hit, because cutting the 4wood would have decreased optimum distance slightly.


I think Sarazen hit a 4-wood into ANGC, again downhill, for his double eagle.   And that's sort of the point, as well.   Once steel shafts were introduced, the game pretty much stayed the same in terms of distance for a long, long, long time...many decades in fact.

Jim, the balls I played with in the early 70s were of two types.   Very soft balata which would nick or cut right thru to the rubber band if you caught it thin, or rock hard Top-Flite two piece balls, which could actually split or crack.

All the top players chose the former because trying to get the latter to spin was like trying to float a stone.  

It wasn't until the last 15 years that ball technology exploded, then accelerated again for top players with optimized club technology meant to optimize the new ball, and then got completely out of control for top players, leading to the type of frustrating discussions we're having right now, such as how to change a hole that has stood up pretty well for many decades since Crump built it, to turn it into a 500 yard par four at  different angle.  

[JESII]

Mike,

Are you really suggesting that Hogan had two clubs in his bag with identical optimum distances?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Are you really suggesting that Hogan had two clubs in his bag with identical optimum distances?

Jim,

Absolutely.

A golfer's bag used to be;

Driver
3-wood
4-wood or 5-wood

1-iron or 2-iron
3-iron
4-iron
5-iron
6-iron
7-iron
8-iron
9-iron
PW
SW

Putter

There was no such thing as utility clubs (the closest thing was a 5 wood), or carrying 3+ wedges, and there was distance overlap between the shortest woods and longest irons.   The woods would just go higher, which might be advantageous in stopping the ball quicker, or downwind, but would be a detriment into strong winds or when you wanted a shot to roll out.

Man, I feel like a dinosaur.  

[JESII]

And you think his shortest wood only went 185 or 190?

[Mike_Cirba]

And you think his shortest wood only went 185 or 190?

All things being equal, a 5-wood would be in that range on average.  

Don't forget, when Nicklaus came along, he was a HUGE hitter and he would hit his 1-iron for shots in the 225-230 yard range.

[AndrewB]

What is the 4th hole scoring average and scoring spectrum during the Crump Cup?    Before anyone proposes tee lengthening on this hole, shouldn't the scoring statistics be known?  My guess is that the club is aware of the numbers, but we certainly aren't.  Any debate as to whether something should be done to bring back shot values should be considered in an informed way--it may not even be necessary.  The lengthening of holes doesn't always improve the hole even if recapturing shot values is the driving (pun intended) force.

I don't know the score ranges on the fourth hole, but why does increasing score have to be the motivating force behind this or other changes to courses?  Is scoring average really what we're trying to restore in course restorations?

In this case I thought the desire was simply to make the hole play as its designer intended, with the second shot from the top of the hill.  If that happens to make the hole harder overall, which it likely will, then so be it.  But, it might not: Michael said above that he thought it might even make the drive easier.

[Phil Benedict]

Mike,

You think Nicklaus was 40-yards longer than Hogan?

Jack's 1-iron on the 72nd hole at Baltusrol in '67 was supposed to be 238 yards, uphill against the wind.  Mickelson hit a three-wood from pretty close to the same spot in the PGA a couple years ago.  Jack's shot was pretty amazing considering the quality of his golf ball and a club that had a sweet spot the size of a dime.

[JESII]

And you think his shortest wood only went 185 or 190?

All things being equal, a 5-wood would be in that range on average.  

For one of the longest hitters the game has ever known...5 wood goes 185...and distance really didn't change all that much for decades and yet someone comes along and is 20% longer 10 years later...

what'cha smokin'?

[wsmorrison]

Andrew,

I am not advocating that scoring be the primary consideration in determining whether a hole should be lengthened or not.  Nor am I saying that increasing score is a worthwhile end in itself.  That would be preposterous.  There are many things you can do on a hole to increase scoring; we see it in some designs and many setups.  That should never be an end unto itself.

I look at scoring only as a starting point.  If we don't know that, how do we begin to know if anything should be changed?  If the field in the Crump Cup are not overpowering the hole, then why change it?  I doubt very much that the scoring average was below par so why even consider it?  

"In this case I thought the desire was simply to make the hole play as its designer intended, with the second shot from the top of the hill.  If that happens to make the hole harder overall, which it likely will, then so be it."

You may reach the old landing zone of the hole as it was played decades ago.  However, you still won't be hitting the same club into the green.  In fact, you'll probably be hitting several clubs less.  So how is the design intent realized?  Only on the tee shot.  OK, the powers that be might very well want a longer shot into the green, but please let us not mistake that for the same shot it once was.

While I am not as long as many of the players in the Crump Cup, I like the increased demand you get from the downhill lies you can get from the current back tee.  I do not necessarily like the strategic disconnect that some of the shorter players would have in the Crump Cup and other events played from a new back tee in the proposed position.  Given that the current back tee makes some of the golfers pause as to what club and shape shot to hit.  I think without a doubt a new back tee would require everyone to hit driver and take away some decision making.  So even if you can go back, I'm not sure it is a good idea.  I hope shot testing and careful consideration are given to the concept.  I have little doubt that it will.

[JESII]

Wayne,

Pine Valley was built as a shot testing labratory, was it not? The decision making you see vanishing simply shifts from the first shot to the second.

At the bottom of the hill with 150 to the front edge on that green is a 145 shot that you hope you catch solid enough to stop...the 225 to the front shot from the top of the hill gives you the option of trying to hit it up in the air or along the ground...and guess what...the green approach lets you try whatever you want...

I would say the success of the new tees on 13, 15, 16 and 18 have earned them the assumption that this might just make sense...once it is viewed in hindsight...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()