« it takes the Driver out of my hand ».

[John Chilver-Stainer]

On a recent thread a phrase popped up which I hear now and then from my golf bretheren -  « it takes the Driver out of my hand ».
My reply is usually – « where is it written that a golf hole has to accommodate a driver ».
Then just to spice things up I add. « I believe the driver should be taken out of the hands of a long player up to 7 times in a round. »
I base this on the premise that on a Par 72 course there are usually fourteen plus 300 yarders which normally invite a driver from the tee.
Since for the sake of argument a single digit golfer would require say 80 shots of which 36 would be putts and 14 driver that leaves 30 shots for the other clubs. Not many considering there are still 12 other clubs in the bag.
So in the interests of providing the rounds with more variety for the longer players I believe that some of the holes should « persuade » the player to take an iron or wood from the bag instead of a driver.
This can be done with water from 220 yard to 270 yards, or a snaking ditch, or a tree or some some nasty bunkers.
Obviously there’s always someone who can fly the lot – we’re talking about our average single digit golfers here.
How many times do you think a golfer should be « persuaded » to take the driver out of his hands ?

[Dan_Callahan]

I just spent $400 of a Titleist 905R with a Proforce V2 shaft. The ball comes flying off the clubface, and it is flat out fun to hit. From this point forward, any hole that is designed with the intent to take this club out of my hands will really piss me off.

[Brian Noser]

Zero!! I am one who hates this as well. Just because I can hit the ball a long way why should I be punished? or forced to lay up? I understand the need to make it more difficlult but force me to hit a straight shot, narrow the fairway in my landing area.  But to end the fairway at 230 or 250 and then pick it up 300 from the tee to me is dumb. Like you descibe it if I have to think about hitting driver that is fine. But if I have no option other then to lay up I think the hole is bad.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

I agree with you.

As a parent, I have heard my children scream, "That's not fair!" It means something didn't go their way. I have heard similar screams from golfers, and it usually means, well, pretty much the same thing.

Now, I am not comparing golfers to children, but in design, I have usually adapted the old parenting rules of not saying "NO" but rather giving the children, er golfers, a choice between having their cookies now or later.  In the golfers case, they don't blame me if they have a choice of hitting a driver to a narrow fw or laying up safe, as long as I don't tell them NO by cutting off the fairway.

Of course, in todays world of environmental constraints, and keeping creeks as is rather than piping them, etc. it often happens that we are forced into a few of those situations per course.

[JohnV]

John,  I agree with you that some having some holes where driver might not be the sensible play makes sense.  I do have a problem with holes where the architect grew rough across the fairway simply to do that.  

There are 6 par 4s at Hannastown (see my home course), where I do not hit driver.  On all but one of them, I could hit driver, but from my point of view the risks are not worth the rewards.  But, I've seen plenty of other guys who hit it about as long as me hit driver on most of them.  Sometimes it works for them and sometimes it works best for me.

There is one par 5 where I hit driver, but when I nail it, I end up in rough that crosses the fairway where the cart path does and end up with no real chance at going for the green.  That I don't like.  Hitting a "perfect" drive and ending up in a downhill lie in 3 inch rough 240 yards from the green isn't my idea of fun.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Thanks for the posts. Great array of answers.


Dan – I can understand you wanting to play with your new toy – but you can also do that on the driving range – more people get to see your latest addition to your bag that way. How do you think the rest of your clubs feel about not being amortised ? That’s favouritism.


Brian – that’s the very reason you should be throttled down – because you hit it a long way – you have an advantage over normal players. By forcing the longer players to « lay up » it gives a chance for the less longer (or should I say shorter – no) players to catch up. Think about it you’ll get a longer second shot –also an advantage for the big hitter - and you can compare your shot to the player right next to you.  


Jeff,
That’s an interesting comment. Not only does the « lay up » hole take the driver out of the player hands it offends his ego (see Dan and Brian’s posts). The architect has really undermined the psyche and is givng them a lesson in life. Mabe it’ll put them off their game – is this points for the architect ?


John,
I’m confused – how can a perfect drive end up in the rough ?



Just to keep the thread alive my question is not should the Driver be taken out of the players hands bit how often.

[JLahrman]

Brian – that’s the very reason you should be throttled down – because you hit it a long way – you have an advantage over normal players. By forcing the longer players to « lay up » it gives a chance for the less longer (or should I say shorter – no) players to catch up. Think about it you’ll get a longer second shot –also an advantage for the big hitter - and you can compare your shot to the player right next to you.  

This sort of logic I don't comprehend.  Brian has an advantage over 'normal' players (whatever that means).  So now we purposely design a course to negate that advantage?

Some players are better putters than others, some are better sand players, some are better short iron players.  Do we design courses to negate these advantages?  If you are a longer and straighter driver than I am, by all means you should have an advantage over me.  I understand narrowing a fairway in the long hitter's landing zone to make the player think twice about pulling driver, but why take away the option?

My answer is never.

[Joe Hancock]

Some people like drag racing, some people like Formula 1....

EDIT/ ADDITION:

I'm learning a lot about golf course routing. Of the many facets involved in routing, rythem and flow is a large part of it. (We're talking about good routings). In my above analogy, drag racing is full throttle, straight ahead. There isn't much in the way of strategy, but damned exciting when the speeds are up there. Conversly, in F1 racing, there is high speeds combined with braking, turning, passing, pit stops, etc.

Sometimes in a routing, a "lay-up" hole (not neccessarily a hole that you CAN'T hit driver, just one that might not be a benefit...think 17 at Crystal Downs) is there as a follow up to a "drag race" hole (think 16 at CD). You just had a series of swings that were full bore, and now the architect creates some required thinking at the next tee. I don't doubt for a minute that, in the CD example above, that it was on purpose with competition golf thinking in mind.

A good routing will engage your thought processes. To only be asked to stand on the tee, pick a line, then try to execute that line isn't exercising the full depth of golf strategies that are rattling around in our heads.

Joe

[Ian Andrew]

Joe,

I like your example at Crystal and the example of 16 and 17 as a contrast.

You so badly want to take it long on the 17th because the green tells you that "I'm sure you can get it here today" (kind of like Riviera). The reality is that missing on #17 is an absolute disaster. But the hole plays with your ego, because hitting the lay-up feels like such a cop out. It's the perfect lay-up hole that doesn't look like one.

Nice choice Joe.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

JAL

Well personally I think it’s fair game once in a while, considering all the advantages a longer player has, and it also provides extra variety to the usual predictable situation of the longer player being 30 yards in front of the normal player.



Joe,

I like your analogy with motor racing which is about driving equipment and skills (pun unapogetically intended). The track being the test. You refer to braking and pit -stops, and engaging the thought process.

One could say that a golf course that persuades or even forces the player not to reach automatically for his driver as he steps on the tee is thought provoking and, if you like, makes the player apply his brakes.
He’ll still have plenty to consider off the tee – how close to the hazard shall I play – how far will the second shot be – what’s the effect of th wind – how far will it run – what’s the best angle of the day – and in Match Play should my playing partner play his second shot first ?

Just because he can’t play his driver from every tee doesn’t necesarily mean the course has a bad routing. As in motor racing each track demands different strategies and skills wether it’s Indanapolis or Monaco.

[JLahrman]

John,

A player is normally longer and straighter because he or she has worked on his or her game more than the 'normal' player.  I don't know why this player shouldn't be rewarded with 30 extra yards.  If the person is 30 yards longer but not straighter, very little is going to be predictable.  I don't consider purely being longer to be much of an advantage.

Having considerations that make the player think twice about reaching for the driver can be thought provoking.  Forcing a player to not hit driver is the opposite of thought provoking.  The player may have all of those other factors to consider, but again why take options away from a player?

[Kyle Harris]

I see the statement of "it takes the driver out of my hand" as meaning that driver is not an option.

This isn't necessarily good.

If a golfer is feeling pretty confident (or overly cocky) with his play club, and wants to try and thread a needle, and is rewarded for doing so in some form, that's good architecture.

If there's no reward (even with GREAT risk and little ROI) then it's just silly and "taking the driver out of my hand" would be bad.

[Forrest Richardson]

I urged John Solheim to work on clubs that focused on accuracy — as opposed to distance. While I am not taking credit for the utility clubs (hybrids) that have come along, this is what I was talking about. Creating clubs that a player can choose from:

   — Distance with adequate accuracy
   — Accuracy...with adequate distance
   — Accuracy with not much distance

I think the hybrids are the future of golf equipment in many ways. As courses and hazards get more responsive to the long ball, we will see these clubs hitting 200-230 shots off the tee — which is, by golly, right where many great courses were designed to have tee balls fall!

From sunnry Arizona — 112° today.

[Brian Noser]

I like what JAL says, Why defend against the long hitter just cause I am long. there are plenty of shorter hitters that are better then me. Why not make the hole harder for them by having a forced carry of 260?  if you are going to protect against one why not somthing of every aspect of the game? I do not think it is an ego thing as you said. Every one here talks about options, well if you place a hazard from 260 to 300 and force me to lay up where are my options? my only option it to hit it as close the the hazard as I can with a 2 iron.

[Forrest Richardson]

Please remind me never to be paired with Brian!

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Fair comment.

I understand the general thrust of your arguments that, the choice should not be removed and, generally I would agree with the « philosophy of multiple choice ».
However arguing the case for penal design the exception can go a long way to help prove the rule.

In the UK – confining myself to some well known scottish courses where « lay up » hazards from the Tee occur by chance rather than design.

North Berwick Nr. 1  - lay up with an iron to avoid a ditch in a valley.

Carnoustie’s Nr. 17 under certain wind conditions Barry’s Burn comes into play restricting a full drive.

Prestwick’s Nr. 3 where the Cardinal Bunker under certain wind conditions forces a layup.

I remember standing on the 4th Fairway at the Open at Royal Troon in 97 where a bunker defends the inside of a dogleg. Nearly all the players were forced to leave their Driver in the bag and find a good spot on the fairway– except for one Tiger Woods who took the tiger line, flew the bunker and caught the hard fairway perfectly and ended up about 150 yards ahead of his playing partner Bernhard Langer.

I’m sure there are some in the US as well. Hell’s Half Acre  must be reachable from the Tee by now ?

In the interests of variety and strategy how about 3 forced lay ups (water, tree, waste bunker) and say 4 risk/reward to « persuade » the player to leave his driver in the bag, try another club off the tee and make the second shot longer - or is that too penal.

[Andy Troeger]

John,

A player is normally longer and straighter because he or she has worked on his or her game more than the 'normal' player.  I don't know why this player shouldn't be rewarded with 30 extra yards.  If the person is 30 yards longer but not straighter, very little is going to be predictable.  I don't consider purely being longer to be much of an advantage.

Having considerations that make the player think twice about reaching for the driver can be thought provoking.  Forcing a player to not hit driver is the opposite of thought provoking.  The player may have all of those other factors to consider, but again why take options away from a player?

I think this pretty well states my thoughts on here, I love courses that make me "think" about hitting driver, and absolutely hate ones that "force" me not to.  Obviously sometimes its unavoidable or necessary, but I'd vote not to ever do it on purpose when there's a better alternative. That's just me though, I agree there should be some benefit to "accurate" length.

[JLahrman]

JAL

Well personally I think it’s fair game once in a while, considering all the advantages a longer player has, and it also provides extra variety to the usual predictable situation of the longer player being 30 yards in front of the normal player.

Also John, in my opinion these are what par 3s are, so it happens four times a round.  I'd say if I go to a course that has three forced layups, I'm not going back.

Even a hole like #8 at Pebble (which I have not played)...shouldn't we just make it a par 3 and get rid of the tee shot?

[Tim Taylor]

Interesting question considering my Sunday morning round. I played in our men's association red/white/blue - first six holes from the red, middle six from the white, last six from the blues.

#1 is 338 from the reds (377 from the whites - usually Driver/wedge). I hit driver from the reds, got it in a bad spot and made a lucky-ass par.

#2 is no big deal - wedge instead of 8 iron.

#3 was interesting. It's a 354 yard dogleg right that normally plays 3I or 4I then short iron or wedge. From the reds it plays 308. Yeah, I pulled driver, aimed over the trees guarding the dogleg and absolutely smashed one. No idea where it ended up. I thought for sure it would be on the green. Shoulda coulda woulda hit 5 iron off the tee. I just picked up since the format was low two net of the foursome.

#4 is 463 par 4 from the whites, 335 from the reds. Yeah, again I pulled driver and hit it so far that just being a little off line was dead. Again, shoulda just hit 3I and wedge. Again, I just picked up.

#5 basically played as a long par four instead of a mid-length par 5 (435 vs. 550). I feel bad saying I birdied it!

#6 didn't play all that different - 428 vs. 458.

It was an interesting exercise to see some of those holes from different yardages and to realize that I played them so stupidly.

TimT

[Forrest Richardson]

Sean — I think you have it all backwards. Allow me to question you a bit...

When you say, "I don't want too many holes where club selection is dictated...", are you referring to the few holes within a round where, perhaps, you are not "encouraged" to hit driver?

O.K.

Then, actually, when the driver is taken away as a "first" choice — isn't the opposite true? That is, the choice becomes more rather than less?

On a hole where driver is a risky endeavor, would you not agree that the player must now choose from an array of clubs? I mean, long irons, mid-irons, hybrids, and even short-ish irons?

I look forward to your response. Somehow I feel that you are of the opinion that a two-shot or three-shot hole hole where driver is limited from the tee should be a rare breed...whereas I think this type of hole actually brings all sorts of clubs into play — perhaps more interesting...?

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Is it possible to design a hole that takes the PUTTER out of my hands?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tillinghaust has a devilish green designed with a hump of rough across the middle. And, there is always Thomas's Riviera No. 6...

[John Chilver-Stainer]

I was just browsing the official US Open Web Site and checked out the layout to the course and found a « lay up » hole from the Tee.

This is the description on their website.

Winged Foot
Hole 15 « Pyramids »
The 15th is a short par 4 but by no means an easy hole.  The players will lay up short of the stream that crosses the hole.  Most players will likely choose to play their tee shots to the top of the hill leaving mid-iron approaches.  Some may elect to lay up just short of the stream, leaving a downhill short-iron approach.  The fairway slopes severely downward and to the left sending many balls into the rough.  The putting green is one of Winged Foot’s very best – a diagonally shaped green with a false front and plenty of humps and ridges.

http://www.usopen.com/course/hole_by_hole.html#course

It will be interesting to see if this is an entertaining hole to watch or not.

[Forrest Richardson]

Thank you Sean, for the clarification. The only time I can wholeheartedly agree with a forced lay-up is on a par-5 tee shot. Somehow I feel that this presents an interesting math and geometry challenge for the golfer. For example, if the lay-up is not placed exactly — let's say — 190-yards, it may bring another hazard into play at the 2nd. Just one example.

It also can turn a 3-shot hole into....errr....gee...a 3-shot hole!

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Why is the driver the only club that needs to be taken out of the hands?

I'll await your responses...and please spare me "The Joys of Laying-Up."  "A masterful strategy, boy, I just love the way you hit the 4 iron 205 yards to the widest part of the fairway.  I wish I had your intelligence to leave yourself another 4 iron!!!"

For some here, it is a master stroke of strategy to lay-up to leave a full shot.  #8 at PVGC is an excellent example.  You do need to spin the ball from the correct side of the fairway to either green, but I would need an air-sickness bag if I had to forgo driver seven times around.

Riddle me this Batmen (SIC)...

If architects feel the need to take driver out of my cold dead hands, then shouldn't there be a corresponding # holes where one is forced to carry the ball 250 from the back tees (200 from middles/150 from whites) and punish those who cannot execute this shot as much as the person who goes for the 310 par 4 and is left with no chance at par 4 if they miss?

It is amazing the amount of work that goes into punishing length without an equal amount of penalty for the lesser hitter.

I am not arguing about fairness - I am arguing about bias.

Nothing is less satisfying than hitting Driver 320, laying up with 6 iron to get a 92 yard wedge that you stick to 10' and then have no chance at birdie because the green is so tricked up.  Meanwhile, Capt. Yonex hits Driver 230, 3 wood 200, misses short on purpose and chips to a foot.  "Gotta admire the strategy and the fact that he stayed within his game".  Yeah, and I could have tried to thread a 2 iron 240 between 2 short side bunkers and taken 3 to get down for my par as well, and it would have been a lot more satisfying, even if I make DB because I was challenging the course and myself.

I understand that their are routing issues on gated golf course communities (Doglegs have more golf home frontage).  Sometimes creeks or intervening hazards force driver out of my hand.  But for most players, wouldn't be more fun to try to execute a driver than to hit utility or 4 iron off of the tee?

Myopia's #6 comes to mind.  320 from the tips with a stream at 260.  Carry the stream, good chance at an up and down birdie.  Miss long & left - AMF (Adios ....).  "No thanks, I'll put a crease in my speedo and smooth a 4 Iron out there...Didn't the arc of the ball falling from the sky at 205 yards please you?"

While I love the fact that the U.S.G.A. is graduating its rough from the first cut to ropes at Winged Foot this year, I bemoan what they did to #6 - a great short par 4 that could hae challenged the best players in the world to hit driver close or onto the green downwind with appropriate penalties for a miss.  Instead, they'll all lay up to a perfect distance to avoid the 9 inch ball swallowing rough, and go for birdie in that manner - pretty exciting, huh?  Can't wait to hear the analysts praise the lay up players for showing scuh great patience!

Come to think of it, let's take driver out of everyone's hands!!!  Let's turn the game into who can dink it, chip it and roll it the best.  Why should we attach any benefit to the golfer who can execute what could arguably be the game's most difficult shot.  Down with distance/up with putting!!!  (Sarcasm has now been completed, please resume normal repartee).

Jump Wail Kill

(JWK)