Has the play of PGA Tour players

[Phil Benedict]

Of the top 100 shots hit in championship golf history none were hit with a driver or a wedge and few with a putter....Unless you count Palmer at Cherry Hills of course.

What did Tiger use to hit that chip on 16 at last year's Masters, a 7-iron?

[Eric Franzen]

What did Tiger use to hit that chip on 16 at last year's Masters, a 7-iron?

Lob wedge according to the memorable shots section on Tiger's wikipedia page

2005 Masters - Augusta National Golf Club - final round - 16th hole - lob wedge - chip from 30 feet, from side of green, with a very difficult lie, rolled down steep slope, nearly stopped, then went in for birdie.

[Glenn Spencer]

Tom,

You have a point..If you count misses as top shots the putter is right up there...What is the worst long iron struck of all time.  It has to be one of Normans..

note:  I was talking about the P wedge...not any of those varying degree bastardizations..

Don't know if it championship golf or not, but Calc's 2-iron at Kiawah is the worst televised golf shot, ever hit!!! Wadkins did hit a great wedge into 18 in 1983, but these are Ryder Cup moments.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat, Phil hits 9 irons 170 yards from fairway bunkers to within 2 feet of the pin. It breaks my heart to see how the Tour and tour players take the architecture out of the course and the game.

[Phil Benedict]

Pat, Phil hits 9 irons 170 yards from fairway bunkers to within 2 feet of the pin. It breaks my heart to see how the Tour and tour players take the architecture out of the course and the game.

The subtext to this discussion is how modern equipment in the hands of the best players has taken architecture out of the game.  How much are shots like you describe here a product of modern equipmen?  Does it make that much difference with a 9-iron?  Maybe it's just that these guys are so damned good.

[Glenn Spencer]

Maybe, Phil, but these guys were pretty damn good, 20 years ago and there were not a lot of 170-yard 9-irons being hit then. All this working out and staying in shape, helps you feel and better and play better longer, but it doesn't help you hit it any longer. It is the equipment.

[JESII]

I think the working out trend has at least a small amount to do with increased distances, don't you?

Is it a better shot if you hit a 9 iron to 2 feet out of a fairway bunker as opposed to a 7 iron?

[Phil Benedict]

Maybe, Phil, but these guys were pretty damn good, 20 years ago and there were not a lot of 170-yard 9-irons being hit then. All this working out and staying in shape, helps you feel and better and play better longer, but it doesn't help you hit it any longer. It is the equipment.

In what way is equipment responsible for the absurd distance the pros hit their irons?  It's just the ball, isn't it?  Maybe the lofts?  Personally, I think higher clubhead speed is a factor, just as it is with the driver.

[Phil Benedict]

To continue my point, technology is only part of the reason the pro game has overwhelmed traditional architecture.  The players are better, in the same way basketball players and football players are better (bigger, faster, stronger) than they were a generation ago.  The gap between the elite player and the amateur is growing.  Tiger Woods generates more clubhead speed than Jack did and would outdrive Jack with Jack's equipment, if such an experiment were possible.  This is how natural selection works.

1.  The game grows more lucrative;
2.  More young people take up the game;
3.  Players specialize earlier;
4.  Nutrition and fitness improve in response to competitive pressure;
5.  Technique improves as greater financial reward creates a whole industry of experts who use modern technology (video etc.) to understand the game;
6.  Everyone works harder because of financial reward and competition.

I just think players are better today, and this would be the case even if the equipment hadn't improved so much.  

[Brent Hutto]

OK, here's the starting point for answering Pat's excellent question. If you hit the ball hard enough, high enough, straight enough and can control its distance then very few architectural features matter at all. Wind is just about the only thing can't be overcome by hitting it harder, higher and straighter and wind isn't under the architect's control.

Players nowdays hit the ball harder and higher than ever before. That's due to the fact that they are better athletes and have better technique. They also hit it straighter than they did in Jack's day and that's partly due to equipment and partly due to the choice of not trying to work it so much. Finally, they seem to control their distance every bit as well as Jack did. I'm not sure whether that is equipment related or not.

So the bottom line is that the equipment contributes to the distance gains (that would exist anyway because they hit the ball so much harder) and helps the ball go straighter. The rest is all because the players are better. I don't think they've rendered architecture moot by any means but perhaps we can forsee a time in the future where improvements in the player come pretty close to making all courses play alike for the extremely elite tail of the ability distribution among golfers.

[John Kavanaugh]

Brent,

Are you saying that people and equipment are getting so pure that soon competition will not exist..

[Brent Hutto]

No, I don't think the differences among players will cease to exist. I just think the difference between how the best players in the world would approach playing at, let's say, Augusta National will cease to differ from how they would approach playing at a generic wide-open bog-simple 7,800 yard course with fast and true greens.

At some point they (with they meaning the best of the best) will be able to counter anything that Bobby Jones, Pete Dye or the next Tom Doak can think of to throw at them. At that point the course won't matter much, it'll just be who executes best that particular week.

[John Kavanaugh]

Brent,

Was it architecture that was weak when Nelson won 11 in row or was it the field.  If Tiger plays now I don't think it matters much where if you are talking about who is a favorite.  Your premise stinks..

[Tom_Doak]

I am in Scotland this week and was told today that the R & A is adding 490 yards in length to the club next door [Muirfield] in preparation for its next Open.

Something has got to give.

[Brent Hutto]

John,

The way Tiger was executing his shots at Hoylake, there was no decent course in the world where he wouldn't have won. My point is that one day the Tigers of some future generation will be so good they won't even have to change their style of play for Hoylake versus Muirfield versus Medinah.

At this point in the evolution of the game, the course still matters. Tiger had to develop a specific and unusual game plan in order to prevail at Hoylake. If Tiger has to adjust to a course, even with no real wind to speak of, then architecture is not obsolete yet.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I am in Scotland this week and was told today that the R & A is adding 490 yards in length to the club next door [Muirfield] in preparation for its next Open.

Something has got to give.

The R&A or the HCEG?

[Doug Ralston]

Still;

Except for a few courses like Augusta National, most courses have to be designed for 'average' players, not PGA Pros.

Want Doak to put all his sand and water hazards at 340yds? Most players will never contact them.

Courses are designed for mass play, not Tour play. Must be that way ...... economic, dontcha know? If some few are too good for those courses, they have earned the results they get, I suppose.

[JSlonis]

I am in Scotland this week and was told today that the R & A is adding 490 yards in length to the club next door [Muirfield] in preparation for its next Open.

Something has got to give.

Tom,

That's an incredible increase in yardage.

An increase of 490 yards averages out to about 27 yards per hole.  Obviously, the holes will be changed randomly, but that is a huge difference.

I had the good fortune to play Muirfield last summer in the British Mid-Am and I can't begin to imagine this latest change.  It amazes me that with all the increase in yardage over the years at Muirfield, they still have the elasticity to keep extending it.

For once and for all....

FIX THE BALL!

The amount of money that could be saved or put to better use by just controlling the golf ball is staggering.

[Glenn Spencer]

I think the working out trend has at least a small amount to do with increased distances, don't you?

Is it a better shot if you hit a 9 iron to 2 feet out of a fairway bunker as opposed to a 7 iron?

JES,

Maybe the slightest bit, I find myself subscibing to the theory that since the ball doesn't spin and stray, that they are able to swing harder and create the swing speed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

et. al.,

Hale Irwin was an All Conference defensive back at Colorado.
I don't know any current players who bring those athletic credentials with them, so the contention that today's players are more athletic, or in better shape, seems like a dubious argument.

In addition, Greg Norman in his prime was lean, mean and fit, yet, on # 18 at ANGC he hit a 4-iron wide right, which cost him the Masters.  Only a few years later, less fit, less athletic golfers were hitting sand wedge into the same green.

The hole has been lengthened by about 60 yards, and yet, PGA Tour pros are hitting medium irons, uphill, to that green.

When Palmer, Player and others used to hit 3-woods into # 15 and guys started hitting sandwedge a few years ago, you have to believe that the reason didn't lie within the realm of athleticism or being in shape.

Noone was fitter than Gary Player.

JES II,

It's the trajectory of the ball that renders the greens defenseless.  A 170 yard 9-iron comes down like a butterfly with burnt feet, as opposed to the flight of an old 5-iron from that distance.

Not long ago I was forced to hit 2-irons from 170 yards and believe me, the architectural features and strategy take on heightened significance when the flight of the ball is low.

How many PGA Tour pros would play to a redan by hitting short of the green ?

Like the Maginot Line, architectural features are becoming obsolete, even for amateurs.

Even GREAT courses like Garden City Golf Club are seriously considering adding additional length to combat the inroads made against the golf course by hi-tech, and that's just for amateurs.

Club after club has done the same thing and the PGA Tour isn't stopping at any of those clubs.

[Bryan Izatt]

Like the Maginot Line, architectural features are becoming obsolete, even for amateurs.

Pat,

Not to Mucci you, but could you expand a bit on which architectural features you mean, what it means to be obsolete, and for whom.  

For example, if you're talking about bunkers as an architectural feature, are green-side bunkers obsolete?  Meaning they might as well not be there?  

Are they obsolete because they don't penalize when the pro's are in them?  Or, because the pros don't go in them?  Or am's?  

If the ball were fixed to fly less far, how would that make green-side bunkers less obsolete?  Would a pro playing one or two more clubs on a presumably shorter hole have any significantly greater difficulty with hitting the ball high over them, than today?  Your comparison of a 2 iron vs a 9 iron for 170 yards is not reasonable in any likely scenario of fixing technology.

It is hard to accept your general premise above that all architectural features are becoming obsolete for pros and ams.  Perhaps for pros, the current location and makeup of some architectural features on some courses are rendered meaningless, but for the vast majority of golfers they aren't.  

Reigning in technology to make current architectural features meaningful to the Tour player will likely make the game too hard for the vast majority, for whom it is obviously hard already.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Izatt,

Hopefully, this will address some of your questions.

I'll try to address more through the quote feature.[/color]

diminished the architectural intent and importance of the features meant to be encountered during the course of a round ?

Has the game effectively been reduced to perfecting execution of just four clubs ?

Driver, putter, Wedge, short iron ?

When was the last time that PGA Tour players hit into a fairway bunker with any degree of regularity ?

Have fairway bunkers been so positioned, flanking a DZ, that they've become nothing more than vestigal features ?

Has the equipment and the player created such high launch and land trajectories that fronting and flanking bunkers/ features have lost their ability to influence the players decision making process and strategy in approaching the green ?

If PGA Tour golfers are hitting drives 350 yards and 6-irons 220 yards, what possible influence can architectural features created 20-40-60-80 years ago have ?

And, lastly, other than at WFW and ANGC when was the last time a PGA Tour stop had highly sloped and contoured greens ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the ball were fixed to fly less far, how would that make green-side bunkers less obsolete?  

Lower trajectories impact the approach to greens, especially narrowed, diagonal or shallow greens.

High trajectory requires little in the way of altering (working) the flight of the ball to fit the architecture of the green.
Lower trajectories require more in the way of altering (working) the flight of the ball to fit the architecture of the green.

In addition, specialty wedges have muted the impact of green side bunkers, as has the modern trend away from DEEP greenside bunkers.[/color]

Would a pro playing one or two more clubs on a presumably shorter hole have any significantly greater difficulty with hitting the ball high over them, than today?  

Why presume a shorter hole ?
If a pro had to hit a 3-iron versus a 5 or 6 iron I'd be willing to bet that the architectural features intended for interfacing with the golfer would have more significance.[/color]

Your comparison of a 2 iron vs a 9 iron for 170 yards is not reasonable in any likely scenario of fixing technology.

Then, you didn't understand the point.[/color]

It is hard to accept your general premise above that all architectural features are becoming obsolete for pros and ams.  

Then, you're out of touch with what's going on in the golfing world.[/color]

Perhaps for pros, the current location and makeup of some architectural features on some courses are rendered meaningless, but for the vast majority of golfers they aren't.  


You've chosen to go to the extreme by redefining the issue.
I never referenced the "vast majority.

However, over this past weekend I played with a fellow who was a 5 handicap.  When I would hit a good drive he would be between 50 and 70 yards ahead of me.

Do you think any of the architectural features from the tee to the point his ball came to rest interfaced with him.

Do you think that his approach to 420 to 450 par 4's with wedges diminishes the significance of the greenside features, including bunkers ?

Do you think a sand or lob wedge from 100 yards interfaces with the architecture like a 5-iron from 170 yards.

I've also played with higher handicap players who also bomb the ball, rendering the architectural features less meaningful.[/color]

Reigning in technology to make current architectural features meaningful to the Tour player will likely make the game too hard for the vast majority, for whom it is obviously hard already.

Oh really,

Then, why was the game so popular for the vast majority of golfers in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's ?

Obviously you don't understand that architects create features MEANT to be encountered by the golfer, not ignored by them.[/color]

[Glenn Spencer]

et. al.,

Hale Irwin was an All Conference defensive back at Colorado.
I don't know any current players who bring those athletic credentials with them, so the contention that today's players are more athletic, or in better shape, seems like a dubious argument.

In addition, Greg Norman in his prime was lean, mean and fit, yet, on # 18 at ANGC he hit a 4-iron wide right, which cost him the Masters.  Only a few years later, less fit, less athletic golfers were hitting sand wedge into the same green.

The hole has been lengthened by about 60 yards, and yet, PGA Tour pros are hitting medium irons, uphill, to that green.

When Palmer, Player and others used to hit 3-woods into # 15 and guys started hitting sandwedge a few years ago, you have to believe that the reason didn't lie within the realm of athleticism or being in shape.

Noone was fitter than Gary Player.

JES II,

It's the trajectory of the ball that renders the greens defenseless.  A 170 yard 9-iron comes down like a butterfly with burnt feet, as opposed to the flight of an old 5-iron from that distance.

Not long ago I was forced to hit 2-irons from 170 yards and believe me, the architectural features and strategy take on heightened significance when the flight of the ball is low.

How many PGA Tour pros would play to a redan by hitting short of the green ?

Like the Maginot Line, architectural features are becoming obsolete, even for amateurs.

Even GREAT courses like Garden City Golf Club are seriously considering adding additional length to combat the inroads made against the golf course by hi-tech, and that's just for amateurs.

Club after club has done the same thing and the PGA Tour isn't stopping at any of those clubs.

Strannahan and Brian Barnes to add a few.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Glenn,

I remember Stranahan quite well.
He was ahead of his time with respect to fitness.

Today, they showed a par 3 of 199 yards in length.

Players were hitting 6-irons to the green.

At 199 I remember when players were hitting 2 and 3 irons to that distance, and that was with blades that didn't get the ball up quickly.

The flight of the ball has dramatically changed and the need to carve or work it has all but disappeared.

Years ago, when a hole was cut  in a narrow sliver of a green the ball had to be started well wide of that hole to the fat or safe side and worked toward the hole.

Today, the ball is hit directly at the hole because the trajectory is so high that it renders the surrounding features almost meaningless.

Thus the strategic elements, meant to be interfaced with the golfer, are nothing more than vestigal features.