Narrowed dispersal patterns and architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hi-tech appears to have narrowed shot patterns considerably.

If that's true, should architects focus on making precise "distance" the focal point of the challenge on approach shots ?

And, if so, what's the best way to do that ?

Is it through narrow, diagonal greens that are well protected ?

[Joe Hancock]

Hi-tech appears to have narrowed shot patterns considerably.

If that's true, should architects focus on making precise "distance" the focal point of the challenge on approach shots ?

And, if so, what's the best way to do that ?

Is it through narrow, diagonal greens that are well protected ?

Pat,

I think your assessment only holds water for the lowest handicappers. I witness a lot of badly offline shots, even with the current technology.

I think features such as meandering creeks have been employed by architects for a long time, for the purpose you suggest.

Joe

[Jon Spaulding]

Small/diagonal/guarded greens are about as hard as it gets.  But for the better player, probably the best way to provide a challenge. I don't think archs should embrace this; for we might see 8 hour rounds .

A challenge that I seldom see, but really enjoy is the front-back sloped green; with a reasonably firm & open entryway. This might be more equitable for the higher handicaps and asks the better player to hit a better shot; both in distance and trajectory.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
In 1997 & '98 there were 58 & 54 players, respectively, whose GIR was 66.6% or greater. '99 was a bad year, only 37 guys hit that mark. Things got better in '00, '01, '02 & '03 with 81, 85, 71 & 67 players over the 2/3 figure. In '04, '05 & '06 things have settled back at around the '97 & '98 stats, with 54, 58 & 52 equalling or bettering the mark.

Driving accuracy has declined from over 131+ players at 66.6% or greater in '97 thru '01 down to 122 in '02, 101 in '03, 60 in '04, 48 in '05 and 54 in '06.

For whatever reason, it seems like they're cooking their own geese, narrowed shot patterns notwithstanding. I think the ad should change from "These guys are good" to "These guys are getting worse".  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I think narrowed fairways have impacted accuracy from a statistical perspective.

Joe,

From what I'm being told, the use of water features may be a thing of the past with the new environmental regs.

[Chris Cupit]

Interesting thought but I would worry that emphasis on distance control would only further the chasm between the very good  to great and average to poor player.

Good to great players hit the ball so consistently they have great distance control.  Average golfers may have nearly as good lateral control as vertical?!

One example I can think of is very pronounced tiers in greens.  They are no big deal for the good player as he is usally hole high anyway but those same holes are murder for the weaker player.  For him, once he finally hits one straight on the green, he is usually on the wrong level and still ends up three putting or worse.  Of course when he misses off line and (almost always short) his already poor short game really kicks in and he's got a pretty routine double.

[Matt_Cohn]

Pat,

While I don't doubt your premise, I'd also like to see any evidence you can share about narrowed dispersion patters.

On the PGA Tour that seems not to have happened. While there are multiple variables, here are the numbers. In 2007, 50th place in driving accuracy is 65.35%. In 1980, 50th place was 66.1%. That's basically the same number.

Granted, the ball is going maybe 12% further down the fairway these days, so in terms of degrees off line, shots are straighter now. But if you're looking only at the X-axis, is the dispersion really that different?

Based only on those numbers, one would build longer courses but not narrower ones.

Are fairways on the PGA Tour generally harder-to-hit now than they were in 1980? If so, that would support your premise.

I'm just thinking about the X-axis. I have no idea about the Y-axis.

Also I have to rely on stats rather than experience because the last time I owned a wooden driver, I was 10.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Cohn,

Developments in I&B has resulted in narrower shot patterns.

The studies on mis-hit shots, from drivers to irons has proven that.

How many golfers are still playing blades or wooden drivers ?

Focusing on the PGA Tour as the sole indicator as to how golf is played is ..... narrow minded.

Chris,

I think the failing in your comment is that you view the issue in the context of the guys you see on TV each weekend, the best of the best.  PGA Tour Pros who are playing at the highest level that particular week

We rarely see the guys who miss the cut or the guys who shoot the worst rounds of the day.

The reason I like your tiered green approach is that in today's world, with faster, flatter greens, the tier concept leaves mis-hit shots with far more difficult putts, and/or recoveries.

The tiered green approach requires perfection from both elements, distance and aim in order to get a reasonable birdie putt.

I think of greens like #'s 1 at NGLA and Friar's Head and # 7 at Friar's Head as offering that form challenge.

On those greens, you can get the distance perfect, but, if you're off by a few degrees, the putt or recovery is challenging.  Like wise, if you aim perfectly, but your distance is off by a few yards, you're again left with a difficult putt or recovery.

The sad part is:  Increased speeds have caused the trend to be away from tiered greens in favor of flatter greens.

Tiered greens are a great feature, despite the fact that TEPaul and Wayne Morrison may find them to be unnatural looking  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

At our ASGCA meeting last week, Dick Rugge discussed a lot of that.  It seems that with new drivers, fw can now be 25 yards wide, and at the Open, players hit it with the same frequency as ten years ago at 30 yards. He attributes that to the big face.

He thought the grooves on the irons helped accuracy - 50% of shots from rough hit the green on the pro tour.  There are limited studies on club play, but one suggests that greens are only hit 13% of the time from the rough.

I don't think the dispersion patterns on irons is going down - it's still 7% each side, except perhaps because Tour Players are approaching from shorter distances.

It seems to me, Dick was saying reduce driver head size which allows shots hit up to 1/2" off center to still be on the sweet spot, and do something about grooves, which makes the rough a bigger factor, would be the two things we could do to thwart PGA Tour pros.

Emphasizing Distance control would put us back into the old JN greens across the line of play mode, which I don't favor. One gca discussed designing narrow angled greens to provide more challenge and make angle more signifigant, but I left wondering why were were worried about that small percent of players so much, and am not reallly going to follow that suit.

[Chris Cupit]

Chris,

I think the failing in your comment is that you view the issue in the context of the guys you see on TV each weekend, the best of the best.  PGA Tour Pros who are playing at the highest level that particular week

We rarely see the guys who miss the cut or the guys who shoot the worst rounds of the day.

The reason I like your tiered green approach is that in today's world, with faster, flatter greens, the tier concept leaves mis-hit shots with far more difficult putts, and/or recoveries.

The tiered green approach requires perfection from both elements, distance and aim in order to get a reasonable birdie putt.

I certainly could be suffering from a little myopia but I can't remember the last golf I watched on TV and 99% of the golf I do see is from my membership.  I do have some very good players and obvioulsy, most players are 15s and above.  It just seems that even good players (5s and below) are able to really do a pretty good job of controlling their distances--irons easier to hit, courses playing shorter and leaving more short irons.....)

At a 15 and above handicap I almost never see a shot end up hole high!  Tiered approaches are just so much harder for the average player I have never really liked them that much.  Trying to look through the glasses of the average player makes me wonder if tiered greens don't just make an already challenging game even harder.

Certainly good players will miss greens and tiers expose the guy who is off line and is not hitting it very solid.  But again, good players are usually pretty good with their short games and once again, the tiers just widen the gap between the good and average player.  

Maybe the good player isn't going to get up and down a lot with tiers, but the 18 and above has almost no chance and more often than not, the tiered chip leads to flubs, skulls and at least 3 and 4 shots more to finish a hole.  

[Matt_Cohn]

Pat,

I have no need to hear how I'm narrow minded, or ignorant, or whatever else. This happens almost every time I post on one of your threads. If you can't write a paragraph without including something of the sort, then please don't both responding to me. I don't want to read it.

I've learned a lot on this website, but it's from the people who converse with me respectfully, not the ones who cut me down.

That said, I believe your assumption regarding shot dispersion, but I'd still enjoy seeing numbers. If you don't have them, it's not a big deal.

I don't feel like wasting the rest of my morning justifying the reasonable questions I've already asked.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Cohn,

Jeff Brauer answered your question when he referenced comments by Dick Rugge.

The obsolescence of blades and woodies is all the proof you need.

Stop being a wimp and get a tougher skin, my comment was a pun.   Narrow fairways .... narrow minded.. Obviously, you didn't get it.

[Matt_Cohn]

Pat, you've taken the joy out of yet another thread. Good job.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Cohn,

No Matt, you did, vis a vis nit picking.

To question the premise in the face of huge metal drivers and perimeter weighted irons is to deny cause and effect, the result driven evolution of golf clubs over the last two decades.

Do you really think that golfers are using this equipment because their performance produces worse results than that provided by their old blades and wooden drivers ?

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Is there any chance the USGA or NGF would have any statistics to affirm, beyond people falling for every marketing campaign, that the average golfer hits considerably straighter shots?

Joe

[Lloyd_Cole]

Hi-tech appears to have narrowed shot patterns considerably.

Pat

Show us the data.
You just reprimanded John K for starting a thread when he had nothing to back it up.
And if you don't want to do the resarch. Please refer to your own advice.

[Matt_Cohn]

Yes, Pat, I think that persimmon drivers go straighter.

NO!

Um, duh - the newer clubs go straighter. Remember, I spent a year selling them.

But the fact that driving accuracy has not increased, percentagewise, is a fact that needs to be reconciled before we all agree that driving targets should be narrowed.

[Pete Lavallee]

To question the premise in the face of huge metal drivers and perimeter weighted irons is to deny cause and effect, the result driven evolution of golf clubs over the last two decades.

Do you really think that golfers are using this equipment because their performance produces worse results than that provided by their old blades and wooden drivers ?

Although I doubt you'll get an argument that todays 460 cc metal woods are more accurate than wooden clubs, I think you are way of base claiming perimeter weighted irons are more accurate. Do you have anything other than anecdoteal data to back up this claim?

PGA Tour players rarely miss the sweet spot on iron shots. If you checked the wear spot on Tiger's Nike blades I guarantee you'll only find a dime sized wear spot. If perimeter weighted irons were a help, don't you think Tiger would be smart enough to put them in his bag?

If perimeter weighted irons are such an improvement why hasn't greens in regulation statistics markedly improved over the years? 70% GIR is still the benchmark for iron play on Tour. Oh, maybe it's because over half of the players on Tour are still using blades.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, Pat, I think that persimmon drivers go straighter.

NO!

Um, duh - [size=4x]the newer clubs go straighter.[/size] Remember, I spent a year selling them.

IF that's the case, why are you arguing whether or not the newer clubs go straigter ?   ?  ?

You've stated that they do.
Which is what I indicated.
You're arguing with yourself.[/color]

But the fact that driving accuracy has not increased, percentagewise, is a fact that needs to be reconciled before we all agree that driving targets should be narrowed.

Did it ever occur to you that the fairways had been narrowed ?

Or that the statistics are meaningless since they don't measure angles of deflection, merely, fairways hit.

If a golfer is 3 degrees off line and his ball goes 250 yards in the fairway, and another golfer is 2 degrees off line and his ball goes 300 yards in the rough, are you telling me that the first golfer is more accurate than the second ?

But, since you've already admitted that the newer clubs go straighter, the point it moot.[/color]

Llyod Cole,

Now you're not going to take Matt Cohn's word for it ?  ?

The manufacturers will provide you with all the data you need.

If you need more info, stand by the 1st tee at any golf course and count how many golfers are playing with wooden clubs and blade irons.

Are you also a member of the "Flat Earth" society.

Joe Hancock,

Maybe, "considerably" was an overstatement.
But, "marginally" would be an understatement.

If Matt Cohn says that the newer clubs go STRAIGHTER, I'm willing to accept his word as he used to sell equipment and is intimately familiar with their performance.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Jeff's stats seem to indicate that rough works to negate some of the effect of narrowed shot patterns, i.e., a 50% GIR. If, as he says, diagonal greens aren't well suited for the majority of players then wouldn't well lcated rough still be the number 1 way to do it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

Most forget that the average handicap of the golfers at most courses is about 18.

Rough can be an overwhelming challenge for the average to below average player.

When I look at golf courses such as Friar's Head, Sand Hills, Hidden Creek and NGLA the appeal of a wide fairway seems universal.

It's more user friendly for the higher handicap, yet those courses retain their challenge for the lower handicap.

Narrow rough would change that.
It would make an enjoyable challenge, less enjoyable.

Slashing out of the rough, especially wet rough, is difficult and NO fun.

Marginally missing an interesting green can be very exciting.

It would appear that the shots lost around a green are fewer in number than the shots that can begin to be lost far back in the DZ in deep rough.

Not to bring Wayno and TE back out of the woodwork, but, I can remember when I had to take a sand wedge to hack a ball out of the deep, thick rough, back to the fairway at SH.

I can remember lesser golfers attempting to hit a 4 iron from the same spot.  Then, a 7 iron, and finally, accepting their fate, a sand wedge back to the fairway.  The quadruple bogie they took ruined their round, despite how much they might have enjoyed the previous or succeeding holes.

For the regular golfer I'm not a proponent of one swing producing an X on the card, so, given the choice, I'm an advocate of wide, not narrow fairways.  If a golfer has some difficulty at the green end, I don't see them posting an X on their score card.  

The marginal hit to score isn't as disastrous.

And, even if it was, I think they'd have more fun, aka, the 7th green at Friar's Head or the 3rd green at NGLA, then tangling with high and/or thick rough.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Llyod Cole,

Now you're not going to take Matt Cohn's word for it ?  ?

The manufacturers will provide you with all the data you need.

Pat

Regarding the manufacturers and the first tee
I was googling for some variation on (yes, obviously)

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
- Mark Twain

When I found this

Think about how stupid the average person is; now realise half of them are dumber than that.
- George Carlin

I had you pegged as being above the divide...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd Cole,

Do you cling to the fantasy that today's clubs don't produce improved results ?

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd Cole,

Do you cling to the fantasy that today's clubs don't produce improved results ?

Pat

I use Ping i5s

I do not believe all the claims made by the manufacturers, if they were true, that extra 15 yards with every new model would have strong amateurs hitting it 450 by now
Hence my quote
I do not believe that all modern clubs help all players
I don't believe the 460 drivers are straighter
Irons with great big heads help no one, but when the huge Callaways came out, every wealthy hacker had them, now the model aimed at them is smaller and better
Giant drivers make it hard work to square the face for many players
You've read the Tom Wishon book, right? Most of these guys need a real hook face, but can't bring themselves to use one
Will these square headed drivers be around in 5 years, do they help? Maybe.. Are they new technology even? No. They are on the first tee at a club near you, though
I don't buy your 'if they weren't better, people wouldn't buy them' line. It sounds like Free Market nonesense to me. People change clubs because they - suck or in a rut, are bored, buy into an idea or just want a change. Folk swing better when they are confident, new clubs bring that. But it doesn't last.
I do not believe acuracy is improved with modern irons otherwise ALL professionals, whose jobs depend upon it would use them. Many don't.
Perimeter weighting, in irons most significantly improves the success of slight mishits. I couldn't believe it, in 1995 or so, when a Titleist DCI 962 4 iron made the green with the toe hit I put on it. Not pin high, though.
I don't think these shots go any straighter though, just further than a mishit blade, so maybe it's cross bunkering we need

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd,

I've used Ping Eye 2's for about two plus decades.
I used to use MacGregor and Toney Penna blades.
Every time I hit a mis-hit that goes on the green, I kiss the clubface and thank Karsten Solheim because I know that that ball would have been in trouble with my old clubs.

And, I'm driving the ball straighter than I ever have with my Taylor Driver, those mis-hits don't seem to slice or hook OB anymore, and, I haven't gotten more athletic in the last 40 years.

The evidence is undeniable

Ball go farther
Ball go straighter.

And, it's not just the better player who's gained the distance and accuracy, it's almost all golfers.

I agree that the "sales" claims can't be taken literally, but, the results are fairly clear..

I look back at my dad and his peers when they were in their 60's and 70's.  Joe McBride, Chet Sanok, Billy Dear and others.
As great as they were, they couldn't hit the ball anywhere near as far as guys their age do today, at 60, 65 and 70, nor could they hit it as accurately.

And, I see young kids who couldn't hold a candle to Hogan, Nelson, Snead and the like, bombing the ball so far past them it's ridiculous, and, they hit it straight.

The game has become easier.

The question is, how best to present a enjoyable challenge in the face of increased distance and greater accuracy ?