Architecture that takes the driver outta yo hand?

[Darren_Kilfara]

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 ?

Why should people who drive the ball straight and far be specially accommodated on every single par 4 and par 5 on a golf course when people with other equally meritorious skills aren't? If an entire golf course kept the driver out of your hand, that would be one thing - but a course with up to 5-6 holes (excluding par 3s) which does this is perfectly fine in my book. More power to the player who hits accurate approaches, has a good short game and putts well and less to the player who drives well, I say!

[JESII]

Sometimes I get the feeling Pat Mucci would like every single thread on here to argue that the USGA needs to dial back balls and drivers.

Pat, I think what you are envisioning by my/our statements is off base. Gary Nelson started a thread about lay-up tee shots and that might better relate.

We are discussing the value of holes in which the reward for hitting a driver close(er) to the green is outweighed by the risks of missing that driver at all.

Case study: #6 at Pine Valley
For the guy who drives the ball 300 yards plus.
1) If he wants to hit his driver he may, he simply needs to hit a very accurate shot over the corner of the trees. Very should be greatly emphasized there.
2) He can then work down through his bag all the way to about a 4-iron and have the benefit of a more forgiving target area, albeit further from the green, with each club down.

At each yardage off the tee the line changes slightly. A bit more to the right (towards the green) as the player increases their desired distance.

[wsmorrison]

"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."

MWP,

3 out of 4 par 3s at Merion are well over 190 with pretty long carries required from the new tees.  I suspect you make an exception    I hope next time you're in town you might consider getting in touch.  

Best,
Wayne

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why should people who drive the ball straight and far be specially accommodated on every single par 4 and par 5 on a golf course when people with other equally meritorious skills aren't?

How have they been specially accomodated ?

What equally meritorious skills are you referencing ?[/color]

If an entire golf course kept the driver out of your hand, that would be one thing - but a course with up to 5-6 holes (excluding par 3s) which does this is perfectly fine in my book.

We disagree.

Should 5-6 holes have larger cups to accomodate poorer putters ?[/color]

More power to the player who hits accurate approaches, has a good short game and putts well and less to the player who drives well, I say!

Why should one facet of a highly skilled players game be penalized ?   Why should any facet be penalized ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sometimes I get the feeling Pat Mucci would like every single thread on here to argue that the USGA needs to dial back balls and drivers.

NO, but let's not lose sight of the fact that distance, not money seems to be the root of all golfing evil these days.[/color]

Pat, I think what you are envisioning by my/our statements is off base. Gary Nelson started a thread about lay-up tee shots and that might better relate.

We are discussing the value of holes in which the reward for hitting a driver close(er) to the green is outweighed by the risks of missing that driver at all.

It's long been a tenet of golf course architecture that the longer the drive the higher the demand on accuracy.

Are you conceding that like the Maginot Line golf course architecture has been overwhelmed by distance and accuracy created by the new balls and equipment ?[/color]

Case study: #6 at Pine Valley
For the guy who drives the ball 300 yards plus.
1) If he wants to hit his driver he may, he simply needs to hit a very accurate shot over the corner of the trees. Very should be greatly emphasized there.
2) He can then work down through his bag all the way to about a 4-iron and have the benefit of a more forgiving target area, albeit further from the green, with each club down.

At each yardage off the tee the line changes slightly. A bit more to the right (towards the green) as the player increases their desired distance.

Or, a smarter player may hit his drive toward the far fairway with a fade-slice, such that a mis-hit won't result in disaster and a well executed shot will be rewarded by being close to or on the green.

There is nothing wrong with that hole EXCEPT the carry over the far corner is no longer precarious.  In 1964, almost NOONE would attempt it, today, the same caliber that opted a little left or right of the cedar tree now blows it over the right corner.

The hole has lost part of its soul, part of its inherent challenge.  And, it lost those architectural values to technology, not talent.[/color]

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I think Pat is right on and supports my posts.  I beleive the person who puts together all of the aforementioned skills would be the most exciting to watch.  People seem to be irritated by the player who is proficient with the driver.  It is one of the great clubs in the bag, and to purposely shelve it for 5 or 6 holes doesn't make sense.  

Since whne did the driver become the source of all that is bad in the game?  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You know if you're going to participate in these threads you really ought to learn how to respond to some of these subjects a whole lot better than you do.

You're accusing me and this thread of ADVOCATING taking the driver out of good and long players hands. I never said anything like that.

Then you launch entirely off this subject into rolling the ball back. I'd have no problem with the ball being rolled back but that hasn't happened and that's not the question here and that means these questions should be asked.

The question is does it matter in how one view the architecture of courses like Merion East and PVGC that many of the long players today do not hit driver on so many of the par 4s?

Again, I don't think it matters. I think it makes those holes and courses even more thoughtful for them.

Did you ever play against Sigel, Pat? I played against him at PVGVC up to 20 years ago and watched him play Merion East a number of times, once in the US Amateur. At PVGC he generally didn't hit driver on #1,2,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,17 and at Merion generally didn't hit driver on #1,7,8,10,11,15,16.

Do you think that means there's something wrong with those courses because they took driver out of his hands like that back then as they do today to so many of the longer players?

And frankly, you're missing the entire point of a question like this, certainly as it pertains to a Merion East or PVGC. Look, a guy like Sigel or even a John Hurley today could hit driver on all those holes I mentioned if they really wanted to but the question and point is whether there's a better more intelligently strategic way to play those holes?

And what about this new strategy developed by people like Singh and used by Woods sometimes called "flogging"---basically just hitting driver as far as you can on any hole without much to worry about on most courses because you're so close?

Do you think they could get away with a strategy like that at Merion East or PVGC? I sure don't and I find that makes both those courses a whole lot more interesting than most others.

If you want to talk about rolling the ball back why don't you start another thread on that subject?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You know if you're going to participate in these threads you really ought to learn how to respond to some of these subjects a whole lot better than you do.

I responded appropriately[/color]

You're accusing me and this thread of ADVOCATING taking the driver out of good and long players hands. I never said anything like that.

Sure you did.  You said you have no problem with taking the driver out of the players hands.  That's an advocacy.[/color]

Then you launch entirely off this subject into rolling the ball back. I'd have no problem with the ball being rolled back but that hasn't happened and that's not the question here and that means these questions should be asked.

It's really at the core of the issue.
If golfers weren't hitting the ball 300-400 yards this thread would never have been typed[/color]

The question is does it matter in how one view the architecture of courses like Merion East and PVGC that many of the long players today do not hit driver on so many of the par 4s?

YES, it does matter.[/color]

Again, I don't think it matters. I think it makes those holes and courses even more thoughtful for them.

This is where we disagree.
If instead of a driver, which the architect intended, a player can hit a 3-4 iron, higher, and with more control, then the challenge of the architecture has been diminished for that player.

The features that the architect created to interface with the driver have been rendered useless for the driver.[/color]

Did you ever play against Sigel, Pat?

YES, on more than a few occassions.
I also played against Mike Taylor and Bill Malley who drove it far past Sigel in their day.[/color]

I played against him at PVGVC up to 20 years ago and watched him play Merion East a number of times, once in the US Amateur. At PVGC he generally didn't hit driver on #1,2,4,6,7,8,9,11,12,17 and at Merion generally didn't hit driver on #1,7,8,10,11,15,16.

That's why he went to the PRO TOUR.
He was long and good and the architecture at those two courses were overpowered by his length.  Like the Maginot Line, the architecture at those two courses wasn't sufficient to provide its intended defense and challenge.[/color]

Do you think that means there's something wrong with those courses because they took driver out of his hands like that back then as they do today to so many of the longer players?


YES in the sense that the result of hi-tech is that the ball goes further and straighter and those courses are no longer capable of presenting the challenge that they were originally intended to present.

The only way they can present a challenge to those players is for the golf course to be prepared to an extreme.[/color]

And frankly, you're missing the entire point of a question like this, certainly as it pertains to a Merion East or PVGC. Look, a guy like Sigel or even a John Hurley today could hit driver on all those holes I mentioned if they really wanted to but the question and point is whether there's a better more intelligently strategic way to play those holes?
Is that what Crump wanted when he conceived of and designed Pine Valley ?   A lay up golf course ?
Or, did he want a championship golf course with all that implies, that challenged the best players in the world, when he was designing Pine Valley ?[/color]

And what about this new strategy developed by people like Singh and used by Woods sometimes called "flogging"---basically just hitting driver as far as you can on any hole without much to worry about on most courses because you're so close?

What about it ?

It's not that the ball just goes farther, it also goes straighter, and the combination has obsoleted the architecture.
How can you deny that ?[/color]

Do you think they could get away with a strategy like that at Merion East or PVGC? I sure don't and I find that makes both those courses a whole lot more interesting than most others.

YES, they can.

You and others only view the issue in the context of a USGA or PGA event.
View it in the context of match play and see what happens to your theory.
View it in the context of a friendly or casual round and see what happens to you theory.

It goes up in smoke.[/color]

If you want to talk about rolling the ball back why don't you start another thread on that subject?

Because you're obtuse on the issue doesn't mean that I have to start another thread using small words.

There's a direct corelation to the architecture, distance and taking the driver out of the better players hands.  You just don't understand it, or worse yet, don't even see it.

Do you think Crump envisioned Jay Sigel hitting driver on only four (4) holes, # 13, # 15, # 16 and # 18 according to you ?
And, you can probably add # 13 and # 15 to the lay up list.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I'm not against people being good drivers of the golf ball. However, on the average golf course you're going to hit 14 drives on non-par 3 holes. Why do you need to hit, or be able to hit, your driver 14 times? A good players with a good short game will almost never get to show off his equally meritorious skill set 14 times in one round. At his peak, Seve Ballesteros never got to show off his miraculous ability to recover from trouble off the fairway more than a couple of times per round. If you divide your set of irons into wedge/short/medium/long categories, you're not likely to hit more than 6-7 full shots from any one category in a given round. Only the putter gets used more than the driver in the average round, and that's for an entirely different reason - you need a specialist implement to actually put the ball in the hole, whereas you don't need a specialist club to put the ball in play.

In fact, I think my ideal golf course would have AT LEAST one hole where hitting driver instead of 3-wood or a lesser club is the sucker play for most single-digit handicappers and not advisable under most circumstances. (Cypress Point #9 or Cruden Bay #3 are two examples of this type of hole which immediately spring to mind...) Kelly, I'm not saying that the driver is a bad thing - it's a good thing, and players who can wield it well should be encouraged to do so. But the prevalent view of "letting the big dog eat" almost seems to be that it's the ONLY thing, strategy and other aspects of the game be damned, and that's what I think needs to be reined in.

Cheers,
Darren

[Michael Moore]

You said you have no problem with taking the driver out of the players hands.  That's an advocacy.[/color]

Herein lies the root of the problem . . .

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci said:

"Sure you did.  You said you have no problem with taking the driver out of the players hands.  That's an advocacy."

Patrick:

If you say things like that what in the hell is the purpose of anyone on here trying to have any type of discussion with you? Have I said anywhere on this thread that I have some problem with golf courses that do NOT take the driver out a player's hand? If I said something like that it'd be advocacy for taking the driver out of their hand. Why don't you just go all the way back to SQAURE ONE and get out your old high school dictionary and start again?

[Tom_Doak]

I agree completely with Kelly.

However, I will say that I think the mantra of not "taking the driver out of player's hands" was brought up by a previous generation, when hitting the driver well was the most difficult shot in the game, and they felt that anyone who could do so should be rewarded properly.  Greg Norman used to be idolized by the Tour pros because he drove the ball so well; nowadays there is no such player.

Today, in contrast, the driver is one of the more forgiving clubs in the bag, so asking a player to hit 1-iron a couple of times is actually more of a challenge.  I'm not advocating cross-bunkers at 310, but holes like the short par-4's at Crystal Downs are certainly a welcome change of pace, because they even out the distance gap a bit while rewarding smart play ... the contour of the land ALLOWS a driver but it is seldom the smart shot.

[TEPaul]

From Tom Doak:

"I'm not advocating cross-bunkers at 310, but holes like the short par-4's at Crystal Downs are certainly a welcome change of pace, because they even out the distance gap a bit while rewarding smart play ... the contour of the land ALLOWS a driver but it is seldom the smart shot."

I agree with that. I said that most good long players today at Merion East or PVGC would probably not hit driver on half the par 4s but look, they sure could if they really wanted to and matter of fact I'm pretty much on record of recommending on some of those holes that tree work and such be done that just might tempt them to do just that.

I'll go ever further. I never actually thought of it before but at Merion I see no real purpose of that stand of pine trees on the right. If some long player is crazy enough to try to drive that green or drive it into that patch of fairway in front of the green right out of the box over all those bunkers into that angle of green let him try. The same with #7, 8, 10. #11 basically had fairway left and more than now on the right and on Flynn's drawing there was fairway both LEFT and RIGHT over the creek. I wouldn't mind seeing them put that back if someone was crazy enough to hit driver there. On #16 most long hitters probably hit 3 wood now but I'll tell you an unusual amount of long hitters in the US Amateur tried to hit driver right up the ladies aid on that hole. God knows why because from there you can't even see the green and you're on a bit of an uphill lie.

At Pine Valley, I'd love to see some trees come down on the right so more of the second half of the hole can be seen from the tee and perhaps the green too for a drive short right on the fairway. If that would tempt some long hitters to try to hit a driver over the road that would be a fascinating temptation. They could also drive it on #2, #4 and I'm all for a ton of trees coming out on the right of #6 so you could get a peek at the geen particularly if that would tempt a long hitter to hit driver way over the corner. There's a bunch of bunkers down near the green you can't even see now that would be exposed to the tee!!

Some good players do hit driver on #8. Watson is believed to be the first to perfect that aggressive strategy. With the new tee they could drive it on #9 and I'd love to see a ton of trees come out on the right of #11 so a bit of the green could be seen from the tee like it once was. I don't know who would be crazy enough to try and drive it there but maybe. Long hitters try to drive #12. I've never seen anyone really long hit driver on #17 but it may be possible. I mentioned that to Michael McDermott one time watching him in the Crump and he sort of went---Hmmm, maybe. I think if you gave Long John Hurley from Nebraska five balls and a driver on #17 he could definitely put one or two of them on that green somewhere.

So one can hit driver on most of those holes. It's just a matter of how aggressive they want to be. On most of them they might make the rare par 4 eagle and some birdies but they would make bogies and others too.

Nothing wrong with all that!  

I forgot Merion's #15. Some long hitters hit driver on that hole because it's tempting but it is pretty dangerous. The fairway really necks in for long hitters as it inclines up the hill to the green. Long John Hurley was having a pretty bad day and on that hole he actually did hit driver. He really pounded it too but unfortunately it was just a little too much to the right. I saw it heading right at that last bunker up on the hill on the right and despite having about ten people helping look for it he lost it somewhere in that real long rough either just short, in the bunker surround, or just over the bunker.

So even the longest can drive it on the shorter holes at Merion but not without considerable risk.

I got an email from Long John Hurley yesterday, so let him tell about course management at Merion East in his own words;

"Hi Mr. Paul;
I was reviewing your comments on golfclubatlas.com's discussion group.  Thank you for your kind words about my golf game.  I'm continuing to work on my course management, but I still like to overpower a golf course.  I just have to be smarter and use my length when it will not get me into DEEEEEEP trouble.  My mom and dad sure enjoyed your company at the Amateur.  Keep in touch.
John Hurley

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

With drives in the 300-400 range the wedge will be used more often, not less.

As Tom Doak mentioned, the driver used to be the most difficult club in the bag to hit (1-irons were rarely carried, and when they were it was only by the best players), and as such golf course architects forged a tactical challenge that began with the driver.

Why do you and TEPaul feel the need to eliminate or restrict that tactical challenge ?

Are you a better short game player than you are a driver ?

TEPaul's game is well balanced, so I know he's not viewing the issue from the perspective of his own game.

I don't believe architects envisioned that the challenge they presented and intended for drivers would be met with 3 and 4 irons, which have radically different flight and control characteristics.

The 8th hole at NGLA used to offer one of the greatest driving challenges in golf.  Today, that driver challenge is so diminished, if not eradicated, that the better players hit irons or 3-woods off the tee, totally ignoring the marvelous centerline bunkers that create the dilema for the driver, which can be clearly seen from the tee.

That hole, those primary features have nothing to do with the short game.  It's all about the challenge and demands of driving and the approach shot.

The only way to return the challenge intended by the architect would be to lengthen the hole to offset the impact of hi-tech, or, to dial back the ball and the equipment.
I know what I prefer.

Lengthening courses is expensive, both in acquisition and maintainance,  and, it never ends.

You and apparently TEPaul find nothing wrong with forcing a practical golfer to lay up 5 to 6 times per round, and I do.

I think forcing a golfer to eliminate hitting driver 5 to 6 times per round reflects an inability on the part of the architect to forge that wonderful tactical challenge which begins afresh on each tee, usually 14 times per round.

WHAT you're advocating is TARGET golf.  
Hit it, controlled, from Point A to Point B, and then to the green.  That sounds boring and/or restrictive to me.
But, perhaps you enjoy that type of golf.

TEPaul,

You're so hung up on defending Merion and Pine Valley that you can't see the issue beyond the context of those two golf courses.

Try a more global view and maybe you'll come to your senses.

Michael Moore,

You've made your usual contribution to discussions related to golf course architecture.........   Absolutely nothing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think Pat is right on and supports my posts.  

I beleive the person who puts together all of the aforementioned skills would be the most exciting to watch.  

People seem to be irritated by the player who is proficient with the driver.  

It is one of the great clubs in the bag, and to purposely shelve it for 5 or 6 holes doesn't make sense.  

Since when did the driver become the source of all that is bad in the game?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree completely with Kelly.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

If your purpose on here is to try to make it look like some  people agree with you, and your modus is to basically take what others say on here out of context to accomplish that purpose, then fine, but that's not interesting or intelligent or honest discussion in my book.

You're telling me my purpose on here is to always defend Merion and PVGC? Are you kidding? A whole lot of what I've said on this website about those two courses is anythng but what most consider to be their party line.

I might remind you that Merion East and PVGC don't exactly need defending from me---both of those golf courses have been considered in the top few in the world---like forever!

[Patrick_Mucci]

If your purpose on here is to try to make it look like some  people agree with you, and your modus is to basically take what others say on here out of context to accomplish that purpose, then fine, but that's not interesting or intelligent or honest discussion in my book.

If Kelly Blake Moran STATES that he agrees with me, how is that NOT interesting, intelligent or honest ?

If Tom Doak STATES that he agrees with Kelly Blake Moran who agrees with me, how is that NOT interesting, intelligent or honest ?

Or, is it the fact that Kelly Blake Moran's and Tom Doak's support of my position means that they disagree with your position and that's what you find UNinteresting, but, intelligent and honest ? [/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

My response to your last post is that any intelligent person read their posts, and in TOTO, and definitely not yours!!!!!  

[Darren_Kilfara]

Patrick, you seem determined to read more into my posts than I've written (such as your inference that I'm somehow a fan of target golf because I believe the driver isn't the answer to every strategic puzzle). To sum up:

--I'm in favor of having some golf holes (like CPC #9) where you can hit driver but probably shouldn't. I believe that I could tolerate a course with up to 5-6 such holes, but that my ideal course would have fewer.

--I'm in favor of removing some of the emphasis upon driving ability from the game and thereby adding relative emphasis to other abilities (such as iron play and short game). Because you asked: I used to have a better short game than long game, although at the moment the reverse is probably true, and in any event my personal profile has nothing to do with this opinion.

--I'm in favor of rolling back the ball, but I also believe that such an idea is a pipe dream at the moment, and therefore that forcing long hitters to use a 3-wood or a long iron off of a given tee is preferable to extending golf courses just to challenge that small percentage of players with the driver on every single hole.

--As a corollary to the above point, I believe that not every golf hole in the world needs to start with the scratch (or better) golfer and his 300-yard driving average in mind. His length gives him any number of advantages already, and he will in theory be advantaged anyway on a hole where he can hit 3-wood to reach a location only reachable by another player with a driver. Why do we have to completely stack the deck in his favor?

Cheers,
Darren

[ForkaB]

Darren, et. al.

One of the saddest sights in the world of golf is taking the climb to the 8th green at CPC and seeing a 4-ball of red-blooded golfers walking down to their balls on the adjacent 9th, sitting nicely on the grass 180-yards from the tee.  I'm sure their caddies told them it was the "safe" play, but what is golf without a thrill or two?  Ditto for the 3rd at Cruden Bay--if you don't try to drive that hole, you haven't gone around in life, and possibly never will.....

[Darren_Kilfara]

Rich's post highlights that in fact there are two different kinds of holes being talked about in this thread:

1) The clever par 4 (or, less frequently, par 5) where you should probably not use a driver if score is your ultimate goal, but where you might use it in the hopes of pulling off a once-in-a-lifetime shot - where you say to yourself and your playing partners, "I know it's a sucker play, but I'm going to try to pull it off anyway."

2) The rather less clever par 4 or par 5 where you really can't use a driver at all, because a hazard exists which can't be carried by anyone (or because the rewards for carrying the hazard are entirely disproportionate to the risks) or e.g. a tree-lined dogleg puts an artificial cap on driving distance.

(The former is obviously better architecture than the latter; still, while you wouldn't go out of your way to design the latter type of hole, it's not the end of the world for me to see a hole use the latter formula.)

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

Mark and redanman:

What percentage of golfers play in GAP tournaments? Is that what you two are asking? That's a good question but for starters the GAP Suburban League matches that've been going on for about 100 years have over 4,000 participants from the 120 something GAP member clubs. That's basically unprecendented in America.

If what you two guys are trying to suggest is that golf clubs that are members of GAP do not care about those GAP tournaments which GAP offers close to fifty of per year for the players of the member clubs of this section, then that'd be fine by me.

If you two birds ran Lehigh G.C. which both hopefully and thankfully you don't and you suggested that GAP tournaments were something your club wanted no part of for the members of Lehigh then I would be happy to make a motion to the Board of GAP that Lehigh be thrown out of GAP as a member.

How do you like them apples fellas?

That's right redanman, just keep thinking outside the box!  

redanman:

Shall I ask Lehigh G.C. if they'd like to drop out of the Pa Golf Association (a strictly tournament association) too? If they ask me why I'd ask them such a question why don't I tell them that their members Mark Fine and Bill Vostinak think it'd be better for the golf club? Wasn't it you redanman who said on here a time or two that your club is run by people who don't or won't include you in the decision making at the club? Well, now, maybe you're beginning to see why.  

[JESII]

I agree completely with Kelly.

However, I will say that I think the mantra of not "taking the driver out of player's hands" was brought up by a previous generation, when hitting the driver well was the most difficult shot in the game, and they felt that anyone who could do so should be rewarded properly.  Greg Norman used to be idolized by the Tour pros because he drove the ball so well; nowadays there is no such player.

Today, in contrast, the driver is one of the more forgiving clubs in the bag, so asking a player to hit 1-iron a couple of times is actually more of a challenge.  I'm not advocating cross-bunkers at 310, but holes like the short par-4's at Crystal Downs are certainly a welcome change of pace, because they even out the distance gap a bit while rewarding smart play ... the contour of the land ALLOWS a driver but it is seldom the smart shot.[/color]

Patrick,

Your effort to gather Kelly and Tom on your side of this is interesting to me considering Tom's last lines here which I highlighted for you.

This sentence of Tom Doak's is clearly in full agreement with my position all through this thread.

The only conclusion I can derive from those voices (Pat, Kelly etc...) that say it is bad to take driver out of a players hand on a hole is that every hole should be a driver hole. Is that your opinion? Kelly, do you not design short placement type holes? Pat, do you not enjoy the strategy of a well designed short par 4? Please explain.