Architecture that takes the driver outta yo hand?

[TEPaul]

From JESII (Jim Sullivan Jr) about Merion East;

"What does having a number of holes (you said 7, I count 6) that essentially takes driver out of the hands of this length player say about a golf course? Good question. To me, Merion is as good as it gets so I have no problem hitting position shots on 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16 because there is so much demand on hitting a good shot from those tees. Frequently when we come to the tee on a "lay-up" hole we're annoyed because the 3-iron off the tee offers very little challenge and also has only a very little consequence for hitting a poor shot."

It was very apparent in the US Amateur, particularly qualifying, that despite about 250 yards of added distance where elasticity existed on that course about half the par 4s basically took driver out of the hands of those players as a reasonable choice.

So what?

I realize that when those courses were designed and built good players could probably hit driver on all the holes of Merion East and PVGC if they wanted to without running straight through something into potential trouble.

Not anymore. But so what really? I'm not sure I understand this big fixation some have that good architecture shouldn't take a driver out of a good players hands. I'm not so sure I get that. It seems to me that these days Merion East and PVGC are proving they are much more strategically interesting because they do that with good players. It must be somewhat frustrating to some good and long players and may even make club selections and strategic execution more difficult---more of a choice, more optional, in other words.

I realize the driver is supposed to be the hardest club in the bag to execute correctly but is that all this fixation  with "taking the driver out of one's hand" is about?

I realize this really odd new general strategy perhaps developed by Vijay Singh and Tiger called flogging of hitting driver as far as possible under the theory that if you get much closer to a par 4 things will work out better in the end.

I think players like Vijay and Tiger could get away with "flogging" at a lot of courses, even like PCC (the other US Am qualifying stie) but I'd like to see them try "flogging"  Merion East or PVGC into submission.

I think they and their score would be in for a pretty interesting surprise.

Taking the driver out of a long players hands? Who cares? I think I like the way Jim Sullivan Jr, who's a good and pretty long player himself looks at this subject.

[paul cowley]

10-4

[Mark_Fine]

Takes the driver out of whos hands?  99% of golfers hit driver on every hole they can.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Would you please try a bit harder to cut down on the extreme length of your posts?

10-4?

Is that some competitor of WD-40?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Have you ever heard about this fixation with not taking the driver out of a good players hand?  

[paul cowley]

Tom...I was just expressing numerically my affirmation of your previous post.

I originally debated writing 'good stuff' or 'hear hear' before settling on 10-4...OK good buddy?  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I believe Davis Love never used a driver when he played Pine Valley (didn't need one).  Did that lessen your opinion of the golf course?  Maybe now with the new back tees he might hit one or two.  

Those guys play a different game and if architects focus too much on how they would play a course, they will only waste money and/or mess it up for the rest of us.  Trying to defend some of our older courses from the pros is very dangerous to the architecture.

I know what you are saying about taking the driver out of players hands, but frankly that rarely happens to all but a handful of players.  And in the other times that an average golfer is forced to layup off a tee, you might need to question the design.  Sometimes it can work, but most times it is poor design (e.g. #2 at Tattersall).  
Mark

[Philippe Binette]

Maybe with the sand areas at like at Pine Valley, you can take driver out of the player's hand if there's no fairway after 275 yards of the tee...

but

sometimes this expression is over-used... if there's a fairway at the driving distance, then ONLY THE PLAYER TAKES THE DRIVER OUT OF HIS HANDS...

driver on some holes might not be the wise play but then the player is considering the option on a risk-reward philosophy and choosing between driver and 2-iron...

Best example: Carnoustie 1999

Players were claiming that there was no room for driver and were laying up out of every tee...
Then, here comes Jean Van de Velde hitting driver on most tees thinking: a driver 280 yards in the rough is better than a 2-iron 220 yards... in the rough

It worked out 72 holes (his tee shot on 18th was OK)
 

[Adam_F_Collins]

I agree with JES II. I think a golfer should be prepared to play whatever shot is called for to get around a course - maybe it's a driver, maybe its a seven iron.

This idea of Driver/60* takes a lot out of the game - but it's great for half-cocked fans clutching beer cups, shouting TIGER WOODS!!!! and aerial shots from Snoopy II.

Market fear has a way of killing a lot of variety.

[TEPaul]

"I know what you are saying about taking the driver out of players hands, but frankly that rarely happens to all but a handful of players."

Mark:

A handful of players?? I think you better get out there more and watch what's going on today. I officiate for GAP and Pa Golf Assoc on most all the A class tournaments. I just went to the US Amateur at Merion and PCC all week.

A handful of players? You better get out there and watch what's going on today. You better think about reworking the numbers on this 99% thing of yours. I'm not sure where you pulled that number from a few years ago but it's wrong---it's not realistic. Maybe you don't care if a number of these courses want to stay relevent for their best players and these A class tournaments but they do.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What percentage of all golfers play in these tournaments?  I'm curious what you think it is    I think your "tournament" background is leading toward your bias.

If you think more than 250,000 golfers are running around playing in the U.S. Amateur and class A tourneys, you are the one who is wrong.  

Watching the pros too much can be a bad thing for golf course architecture  
Mark

[JESII]

Mark,

Go back and re-read Tom's initial post.

His view is no threat to architecture.

There is a fairly common sentiment among class "A" tournament players, whether they be amateur or pro, that holes that do not allow the realistic option to hit a driver off a par 4 or par 5 tee are poor holes. Tom was simply agreeing with an earlier statement of mine that so long as the quality of shot required on the "lay-up hole" is high, it can be a very good design. To use his words "So what?" and "Who cares?"

[Kyle Harris]

Jim, Tom, et al.,

Agreed. I often find the courses that make me think off the tee and place a 3-wood, 2-iron, 3-iron, etc in the correct spot are more fun than the wail and flail of the "driver friendly" courses.

Having to think of my club selection and position makes for a more interesting experience.

[Darren_Kilfara]

In my humble opinion, anyone who complains about "having the driver taken out of his hands" has a distorted view of golf, end of story. Golf is not about hitting the ball far - it's about getting it into the hole in the fewest shots possible, and length is only one element of that chase.

The people doing this sort of complaining are usually those who hit the ball a long way, no? By comparison, how often does one hear a player with a good short game complain that a green is too small or not well enough defended and therefore "takes the lob wedge out of his hands"?

Cheers,
Darren

[Mark_Fine]

Jes,
I'm trying to think of holes at Merion where you simply can not hit a driver (other than the par threes)?  
Mark

[Kelly Blake Moran]

For me as a kid one of the rites of passage was finally learning to hit a driver.  I had a beautiful glossy black Hogan driver in my bag but couldn't hit it.  Once I had the swing that could handle this club I felt I was then participating more fully in the game.  The skill and power required to play a driver properly is one of the great pleasures in the game.  Taking the driver out of any golfers hands should not be a goal on a regular basis.  Today's players whatever the percentage may be are less fortunate than I was if they are required to rarely play the driver.  There seems to be a bias against the power golfer, as if they are somehow cheating because they hit the ball a long way.  I think there is as much skill in hitting the driver long and accurately as any other shot in the game, and the ramifications if the shot is not properly played  can be immense.  If technology is a problem then the negativity should be directed toward entities other than the skilled player that has learned to repetitively combined power and accuracy with the driver, and golf holes should provide the freedom to allow them to exercise that skill.  Many people can hit the ball far, but few have the mental and physical capabilities to do that on a consistant basis and under certain pressures that competition, whether formal or informal, and natural conditions bring to bear upon them.  Affording them that opportunity is part of the enjoyment of the game.

[JESII]

Jes,
I'm trying to think of holes at Merion where you simply can not hit a driver (other than the par threes)?  
Mark

Mark,

1 - I believe this thread was started with the long hitting amateurs and pros playing tournament golf today in mind.

2 - I believe there is a certain amount of risk reward in every shot. In tournament golf, there are several times when the distinction is clear and the player has no option to hit driver off of a particular hole because of the very limited reward.

3 - In light of those two beliefs, the answer to your querry is #'s 1, 7, 8, 10 (probably), 11, 16. Someone else (I believe it was Wayne) thought of 7 holes that take driver out of yo hands and #12 or #15 would have to be the other.

[wsmorrison]

In my experience, hitting a black Hogan persimmon driver or in my case a beautiful auburn Bailey and Izett persimmon is/was a great pleasure.  The Ping G-2 I now use and other drivers make hitting a driver today far easier.  The distances I get with a Ping and Pro-V1x are shameful but I use them anyway.  I can't help myself; I am weak.  But I do play with my persimmons every once in awhile just for fun.  I cannot take it to the extreme like Ran and go back to hickories.  Either I'm not as pure a soul or not as mental.  That remains to be seen.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I don't remember if I said that or not but I am in complete agreement that the holes where I don't hit driver are not at all compromised...they are both enjoyable and challenging.

Now I have never played from the way back tees on all the holes but for the typical back tees without wind I steer clear of driver on 1 (7 wood), 7 (3 or 4 iron), 8 (3 or 7 wood), 10 (3 wood to right side), 11 (3 or 7 wood), 12 (3 wood) and 16 (3 wood).  I do hit driver on 15 depending on the pin.  If the pin is up, I like a more lofted approach.  If the pin is back, 3 wood is alright and takes the road out of play.  


I was following a friend from MN playing in his first Amateur.  One of the guys he played with came all the way from Indonesia to play.  Well, I guess he didn't travel half way round the world to lay up on 11.  We all looked at each other as his father handed him the driver and he didn't put it back.  Man, did he mess up that hole.  A twenty foot putt saved double-bogey.

[JESII]

Kelly,

I don't think anyone disagrees with any of what you said. It actually probably cuased more than a couple of tears from some of the old farts on this site who began thinking sentimentally about the good ol' days and all.

Does that mkae #8 at Merion a bad hole? Anyone could try to hit driver there, but I can assure you no more than one or two did so in the US Am and so the risk is obviously far greater than the reward in that case (and countless others like it around the world). What does that mean? To me it means that the "rite of passage" you describe is but a rite of passage, eventually you get past needing to hit driver on every tee (simply because you can) and begin to try to learn how to shoot the lowest score. That is when you're really playing golf.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Jim,

I can not go far with you on this discussion because I have very little knowledge of Merion, and hole #8.  I will say that for some of us shooting the lowest possible score is not the primary goal anymore.  Experimenting, taking chances, exploiting different ways to play the hole actually becomes the goal for me when I play, although I am very aware of my score, and do fall into a sullen mood when the score is bad, I much prefer to play w/o the restriction to only play the safe shot, to be concservative and minimize potential errors.  That to me is competitive golf at the highest level, but that is not my golf, nor the golf that I feel is enjoyable.  And I don't think my expressions are pining for the good ole days, I think it is more of an expression of the aesthetics of playing the game.  By aesthetics I mean the pleasures that come with playing the game in a certain manner that so happens to involve playing the driver off the tee much more frequently than what some tournament setups allow the better plays to do, that is a separate experience that does not aesthetically please me, that would not give me pleasure as a player.  As there is an aesthetic to art or music so there is to playing the game, there are ways you play the game that can either be termed efficient, conservative, productive, and there are ways to play the game that give immense pleasure, but not always the lowest score.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Courses like Merion are jewels in the crown of golf, and as such if that means hitting less drivers off the tee, that is a small price to pay for having the thrill of playing such a great piece of land.

For me as a straight and relatively short hitter, I  have always hit driver on #1 and 16 when playing in the Hugh Wilson but the other holes mentioned are simply not driver holes...on any course...
I hate playing a course where you hit 14 drivers without giving it any thought..that is one of the things I liked about the Kingsley Club in that it made you think on numerous tees which club you wanted to start your attack of the hole with..strategy...just got to love it...that is what makes this game so great.
On the same thought line, I hate playing courses where all the par 3's demand shots in excess of 190 yards...that to me is as non appealing as 14 tee shots with the driver.

[JESII]

The segment of your post that I quoted and pasted to this post says it all. Experimenting in an attempt to exploit something is golf. Playing conservative to the point of trying simply to avoid mistakes accomplishes nothing, you learn nothing about your game or the golf course, and I think you'd be surprised how few people take that approach in their preparation for tournements.

Jim,

Experimenting, taking chances, exploiting different ways to play the hole actually becomes the goal for me when I play, although I am very aware of my score, and do fall into a sullen mood when the score is bad, I much prefer to play w/o the restriction to only play the safe shot, to be concservative and minimize potential errors.  That to me is competitive golf at the highest level, but that is not my golf, nor the golf that I feel is enjoyable.  

I was not implying that you were pining for the good ol' days, I just like to take a dig at some of the other codgers on here once in a while. No harm intended, and I hope no offense to anyone just a little fun.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Courses like Merion are jewels in the crown of golf, and as such if that means hitting less drivers off the tee, that is a small price to pay for having the thrill of playing such a great piece of land.

But why is this a "price to pay" at all? You make it sound as though it's a bad thing. If you're long enough to hit a three-wood or long-iron the same distance as someone else's driver, isn't the increased accuracy you're likely to get ample compensation for the fact that you don't "get to" demonstrate your ability to hit the driver on a particular hole?

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I disagree with you, which should come as no surprise.

Next you'll be wanting to take the putter out of the hands of those deemed magicians on the green.

There's a reason architects designed golf courses with holes other than par 3's.  They want to test the golfers ability to drive the ball with the longest club is his bag (before those devices used to churn butter were permited)

Pine Valley is an excellent study.
That golf course was designed as a championship course, a "driving" golf course.

Why should the driver be taken out of the hands of golfers who possess the ability to hit it long and straight.
Why should someone who does something well, be penalized ?

I played Pine Valley in the mid 60's and I played it with some fellows who hit the ball a LONG way, and they used driver on every hole, including # 8.

So, for the sake of this exercise, let's go back to 1964.
But, let's bring your theory of taking the driver out of the hands of the better player at that time, with us.
How would you accomplish removing the driver from the hands of the long driver in 1964 at Pine Valley ?

Answer, you'd F-up the golf course in your pursuit.

Sound familiar ?

So, that's not the answer.

You're misdirected and misquided.

The answer isn't taking the driver out of the hands of a skilled player, the answer is to dial the ball and equipment back to the point that Pine Valley and other great courses don't need someone advocating taking the driver out of their hands, because the golf course offers and presents more than an adequate challenge for that golfer.

Pine Valley in 1964 presented a far greater challenge to the golfers of that era then Pine Valley presents today.
WHY ?
The BALL and the EQUIPMENT have obsoleted a good deal of the architecture.

The architecture doesn't need to change.
There should be no need to take the driver out of the hands of the better player.
There should be a need to dial back the ball and equipment.

I can see the Titleist adds now.

Our ball and driver are such a great combination that the ruling bodies, architects and golf courses are trying to prevent you from using them.

Address the cause, not the effect.