[PThomas]

during yesterday's telecast - after which Tiger said something like the course was playing hard, this after shooting 20 under - someone said Toms was moaning that 18 was unfair because it had a wider landing area for the bigger hitters

shouldn't it?

shouldn't the bigger hitter get some sort of reasonable gain because he's longer

and pls note I said reasonable

[cary lichtenstein]

I think Tom's is correct, why should the bigger hitter have a bigger landing area as well? Makes no sense to me

[PThomas]

Cary - but shouldn't he be rewarded for his extra length by having a slightly bigger fairway to hit?

[Jim Franklin]

I say yes.

[redanman]

I think they should all have a bigger landing area and large very flat greens so they can shoot -30 every week and I can just concentrate onthe Euro Tour, Australasian and Sunshine Tours.

The hell with bunkers and water and trees.  Just mow 300 DEAD FLAT acres and put in some tees and flagsticks-in-cups.  You wouldn't have to worry about crowd control.  Tour golf is certainly not very exciting lately week-in and out.  It might be fun.  Just plant the tees and greens in completely different places each day.  Think of the options!

Tiger's just gonna' kick your ass wherever when he's putting well.  Woods was in the rough on 18 yesterday, BTW.   Tom's 3-jack made it a moot point.

[cary lichtenstein]

Paul:

I don't believe so, he should be held to the same or higher standard than the higher handicap.

We have this problem at the Ritz. It was only after moving up to the blue tees, that I now can land the ball in the wider more generous areas of the fairway. Until that time, not only was I 50 yards behind the longest hitter in our group, but my fairways on most holes were 20 yards narrower.

Cary

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Thomas,

No, length has always been its own reward.

From the begining, a theory practiced by many architects is that the longer you are, the more you need to be accurate, thus DZ's were narrowed not widened.

Widening the DZ for long hitters would exponentially advantage them.

[Matt MacIver]

I say maybe.  We always debate the merits of this-or-that course looking for the Utopian 18 holes...maybe it's o.k. that Doral has wide and deep fairways for floggers, while 6 weeks later HarbourTown rewards shot values.  The Tour has gotten boring enough (golf-wise, not personality- wise) that the last thing I want to see are 24 homogenous courses.  Pros have to pick their spots...where to play, how to score.  

[JohnV]

I'm sure he also feels it is unfair to have a fairway that is crossed by heavy rough just beyond where he can reach so that the longer player can't hit driver.  

If the goal is to be fair, the fairway should get wider as it goes since a ball hit a certain number of degrees off line needs more room as it gets further out there so in order to be fair the fairway should slowly widen.  For example, under the USGA Course Rating system, even though the scratch golfer hits it straighter than the bogey golfer, he has a wider area of dispersion at 250 yards than the bogey does at 200.  This is part of the reason that the big hitters miss more fairways.

Personally, I believe that there are some holes that favor the long hitter and some that favor the short hitter and that is the way it is, get over it (and don't three-putt the last green to make it easier on the long hitters.)

[TEPaul]

Is golf architecture supposed to be formulaic?

Actually, the hole should be considered "ideal" by most on here as Toms had the option of putting the ball from the tee to the green.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Gary PLayer was the first tour pro I knew that argued that landing zones should be wider for the long hitter, using the degree of deflection theory.

Sounds pretty self serving to me, and certainly won't work on any course for the other 51 weeks per year.  I had never considered the difference in fw width for the super long vs. the merely long, though.

For a pro tour event, I guess the ideal would be a certain width of fw all the way down the landing area, with no zigging and zagging that might catch someone and not another.  The fairness of it would be they all have to hit within a 35 (or whatever) wide fairway, no?

[David Ober]

Paul Thomas,

No, length has always been its own reward.

From the begining, a theory practiced by many architects is that the longer you are, the more you need to be accurate, thus DZ's were narrowed not widened.

Widening the DZ for long hitters would exponentially advantage them.

I agree, "Length is its own reward." - Patrick Mucci, 2006 ;-)

I don't mind a hole or two that rewards a long hitter for taking a big chance to carry a bunker or water hazard, but it should be the major exception, not the rule, and the bunker/hazard needs to be placed an appropriate distance away in order for it to be a legitimate threat. If not, then the long hitter has too big of an advantage.

The problem with making that a design element nowadays, is that architects have no idea how far out to put the hazards, since guys are carrying the ball so flippin' far today.

Think about it: A course that was built 10 years ago with a big, gaping bunker placed 270 to 280 from the tee is now easily carryable by today's long hitters. It's not even a question of whether or not to go for it, they just tee it up and rip it right over hazards like that, especially if the hole is playing even the slightest bit downwind or downhill.

[PThomas]

Gary PLayer was the first tour pro I knew that argued that landing zones should be wider for the long hitter, using the degree of deflection theory.

Sounds pretty self serving to me, and certainly won't work on any course for the other 51 weeks per year.  I had never considered the difference in fw width for the super long vs. the merely long, though.

For a pro tour event, I guess the ideal would be a certain width of fw all the way down the landing area, with no zigging and zagging that might catch someone and not another.  The fairness of it would be they all have to hit within a 35 (or whatever) wide fairway, no?

Jeff, thanks for bringing Player up...that save me from getting  my copy of SPorts Illustrated from 1965 that I keep in the basement where I remember he brought this topic up

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Every "Long Drive" contest that I have ever witnessed has a set of parellel lines that mark the width of landing area. Whether it is 200 yards or 400, they are expected to hit it into the same target area as everone else.

What if the further one hits the ball the more undulating the landing area becomes? Will tghere be cries of unfair to the longer hitter?

Though I am certain that some will argue this, in my opinion, golf at it's core is a game of accuracy and not distance.

[Tim Gavrich]

If the goal is to be fair, the fairway should get wider as it goes since a ball hit a certain number of degrees off line needs more room as it gets further out there so in order to be fair the fairway should slowly widen.  For example, under the USGA Course Rating system, even though the scratch golfer hits it straighter than the bogey golfer, he has a wider area of dispersion at 250 yards than the bogey does at 200.  This is part of the reason that the big hitters miss more fairways.

I think that this throws everything that makes the Tour interesting out the window.  If your fairways get wider the further out, then you've completely excluded driving accuracy as an advantage in playing a golf course.  You've made extinct players like Corey Pavin, who are supreme shotmakers, in favor of the goons like J.B. Holmes, who will just hit it everywhere, but be close enough to the green for rough to be all-but pointless.

Distance is a double-edged sword.  If you can hit the ball 320, then you should have to learn to hit is straight, like the rest of them.  You should only be truly rewarded when you hit the fairway, which should be no wider than it is for your peashooter opponents.  Your length must force a compromise, whereby you must play from substandard lies more often, closer to the hole.

However, many weeks out of the year, the Tour doesn't care about driving accuracy that much.  When they go to venues like the TPC of Louisiana or other such big-hitters' paradises, they are clearly looking for ratings, for what average golf fan wants to see shotmaking when they can watch Tiger hit a ball 350 yards off of every tee?

I'll take short and straight over long and wild every time, thank you.

[Phil Benedict]

I've never understood the theory that long hitters should have a bigger target for their tee shots.  Because there is greater dispersion on their drives?  Hitter is farther is already an advantage.  Giving them a bigger target just compounds this advantage.

[David Ober]

Every "Long Drive" contest that I have ever witnessed has a set of parellel lines that mark the width of landing area. Whether it is 200 yards or 400, they are expected to hit it into the same target area as everone else.

What if the further one hits the ball the more undulating the landing area becomes? Will tghere be cries of unfair to the longer hitter?

Though I am certain that some will argue this, in my opinion, golf at it's core is a game of accuracy and not distance.

I will definitely argue this. Golf is a game of controlled distance. You cannot, and never have been able to, play this game at a high level without BOTH significant distance and excellent control.

If I had to assign percentages, I would say the game is 50% distance and 50% control. If you are weak in one, you have to make up for it in the other. The game has ALWAYS been this way.

[David Ober]

(snip) You've made extinct players like Corey Pavin, who are supreme shotmakers, in favor of the goons like J.B. Holmes, who will just hit it everywhere, but be close enough to the green for rough to be all-but pointless.
(snip)

I really don't get you guys who call players like J.B. Holmes "Goons." Do you really think that all a guy like Holmes can do is bomb his driver 320 - 340? If they guy wanted to, he could hit 10-12 fairways every single round with his 2-iron and hit the ball just as far as Pavin. Now would he be as accurate into the green as Pavin from the same distances in the fairway? Almost certainly not. But why should he try to be?! To prove some ridiculous point to you and those like you who think that he's somehow a "goon" because he is long and wild off the tee?

If players got points in golf for hitting the fairway, then that's what all of them would be trying to do, but you don't. You get points for getting the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes, and hitting the ball a LONG way makes that a much easier feat. It always has. That will never change in the game of golf, nor should it, IMHO. What HAS changed is that there is now a much bigger gap between the truly long hitters and the rest of the pack than there ever used to be, and that gives the super-long hitters a distinct advantage. THAT I acknowledge.

But J.B. Holmes a "goon"? Come on. The guy is out there playing a game he loves in a way that helps him make a fantastic living. Why call him or guys like him "goons"?

[Sean_A]

I think in theory several good points have been made.  Every hole is different and should be attacked differently.  In reality, where space is becoming a premium and if we are trying to avoid 8000 yard courses being built, I think the risks should usually be greater the further up the fairway somebody knocks it.  That doesn't mean the fairway can't be wider.  Just that the penalty for missing the fairway say 300 yards out is potentially going to result in a high number.  However, what is most important is for designers not to become formulaic.  

If the ball for the pros isn't sorted out we could well see the day where driver is more or less taken out of the hands of smash mouth players on more than just a few holes a round.  

Ciao

Sean

[W.H. Cosgrove]

When looking at course set tup at my own course, we decided to narrow the fairways for the longer hitter.  The theory being that if someone was going to g bombs away that there should be a penalty for just slashing.  

I think Toms is right, lets create consequences for players just hitting the SH(*&^%$#@ out of it!

Looks like Augusta is doing that: adding length and trees simultaneously.

[Mike McGuire]

don't forget the long hitter has to carry it 305 or he is in the water.    

Aren't a lot of good holes designed so if you chose to challenge a hazard by carrying it you get a big reward?


Link to USA Today article with comments from Toms, Janzen & Villegas

[George Pazin]

Personally, I believe that there are some holes that favor the long hitter and some that favor the short hitter and that is the way it is, get over it (and don't three-putt the last green to make it easier on the long hitters.)

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best, as John shows here.

Unless you are talking about something like that fairway at Bethpage that many golfers were struggling just to get to, I pretty much hate it when someone appeals for fairness in golf.

[Brent Hutto]

Maybe it's nuts to criticise the mental toughness of someone who has won a major championship but...

I don't think it's just a coincidence that David Toms was complaining about the unfairness of the Blue Monster at the beginning of the week and then a few days later was committing a heinous three-putt on the green of that same hole, allowing Tiger to coast in with a bogey-bogey win. I agree with Johnny Miller, that first putt was just terrible. Maybe be the worst putt anyone has ever seen David Toms hit, misread, mishit, misbegotten. That, my friends, was a psych-job. Add another very good player to the list of victims of the Tiger Effect.

[Jack_Marr]

What about making the fariways a little wider for the longer hitter but make the rough longer or thicker the further up the fairway you go? More to gain, but more to lose too for the long hitter.

[JohnV]

Brent,

I read an article today where Toms' says that he wouldn't have three-putted if Mark Rolfing hadn't told him how he stood.  He seems pretty good at avoiding the blame.

From a good lie in the rough on the 18th, Toms had 4-iron to the green and could not afford to take on the flag. His putt was impossible, running away from him over a slight crown toward the water.

Toms said NBC analyst Mark Rolfing told him he was only one shot down, and that Woods had hit his drive in the rough. Suddenly, a 60-foot putt got even tougher.

"I wasn't even nervous all day because I'm trying to catch the guy," Toms said. "All of a sudden, I've got a putt all the way across the green, big break, and I'm nervous because I'm just trying to two-putt. That's my mistake. But if I had been looking at it all day, then maybe I would have felt that way all the way through the back nine."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()