Does the difficulty to work the ball

[Patrick_Mucci]

aid the architect's efforts to produce the challenge ?

[SPDB]

Yes, reverse cambered fairways are a good example.
I'd even say difficulty to control the ball (e.g. spin) can aid in the effort particularly on short par 4s/unreachable par 5s where the green runs severely away from the player - example - 5th at Misquamicut.

Can i implore you (on behalf of myself and others) to stop this new technique of not announcing the title of the thread, or only stating an oblique phrase/sentence in the title bar that is continued in the body?

[John_Cullum]

Can i implore you (on behalf of myself and others) to stop this new technique of not announcing the title of the thread, or only stating an oblique phrase/sentence in the title bar that is continued in the body?

This is nothing new

[JESII]

And that type of request will only encourage him...

[Patrick_Mucci]

And that type of request will only encourage him...

JES II,

How correct you are.

However, SBerry presented a reasoned reply on the thread topic, whereas John Cullum and you, contributed nothing  

[Patrick_Mucci]

SBerry,

I was thinking about a similar configuration, the Redan green, and how shaping/working the ball makes playing the hole easier, whereas a straight ball encounters far more difficulty.

[Joe Hancock]

Patrick,

Much like a wayward green committee attempting to produce a more difficult golf course for the few low handicappers at the club, so an architect would be if he or she put too much emphasis on the working of the ball to effectively produce an enjoyable challenge.

The percentage of golfers who can controllably work the ball is very low.

Joe

[paul cowley]

Nah....not really.
We just narrow the area they can hit a straight ball....combined with putting hazards smack in thier carry distances.

[Jim Nugent]

I would have thought the opposite is true: that more shot-making options for players increases the options architects have while designing holes.

After the hole is designed/made, you're right.  

[JESII]

touche...


"Does the difficulty to work the ball aid the architects efforts to produce a challenge?"


I have posited a few times on here suggesting drives that require/force a curved tee shot with a distance control factor are the only way to control the FLOGGERS. I say this because their approach to driving is dependent on the fact that the ball doesn't curve so much...


BUT...I think it would be ill advised for architects to spend too much energy designing for the guys that hit it too straight...

[paul cowley]

Nah....not really.
We just narrow the area they can hit a straight ball....combined with putting hazards smack in thier carry distances.

....good post paul...

[Tommy Williamsen]

Pat, I keep hearing that we can't work the ball like we used to.  I'll bet you can still hit a low running hook to get near a pin tuck left on the green.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick
if designers combined twisty cambered fairways that demand I shape my shots with firm and fast playing conditions, and if they also put in the occasional blind tee shot and a skyline green or two, I wouldn't give up the game of golf.

But I'm sick in the head.

 

Peter  

Ah rats, and I've just reached a new personal low for poor posts. Sorry fellas.

[Michael Whitaker]

How many golfers can really "shape" shots? Not many would be my guess... not today with the new equipment... not even "back in the day" with the old equipment. Only a small percentage of the golfing public have ever reliably had that kind of skill.

Why would architects focus on something that most players who will use the course can't do?

Doesn't this question parallel the topic of designing courses for the elite golfer? Haven't there been volumes written on this site about why golf design shouldn't cater to the limited number of highly skilled golfers in the world?

[Mark_F]

I don't quite understand these answers that focus on how many golfers can deliberately shape shots, so to design such a feature into a course wouldn't suit the majority of golfers who perhaps can't.

Isn't the best golf architecture supposed to encourage players to develop their games to some degree?

The 13th hole on my home course is a 457 metre par four that also has a 425 metre tee about ten metres below the back tee.  

I have never preferred it from the forward tee because it seemed that, in having to hit up and over the ridge fronting the hole, you hit it straight up into the wind, and thus gained nothing.

However, it is not the fault of the hole, but me (and others) who should need to learn to hit a low drive that just clears the rudge and bores through the wind.

Sometimes the feature Patrick is talking about can also work fot the lesser player.  Most can slice/fade the ball, and at Barnbougle Dunes, the 5th hole is a longish par three that can be either played with a fade to the left of the green, in which case the slope of the surrounding ground and green wil work the ball in, or do what most do, hit a straight shot over the bunkered dune and be worse off unless hit perfectly.

As long as their is enough room for the lesser player to work around a features that ideally requires a shaped shot to navigate, I don't see how there can be anything wrong with it, and seeing the result for the better player can inspire others to aim for the same or similar.

[TEPaul]

"I was thinking about a similar configuration, the Redan green, and how shaping/working the ball makes playing the hole easier, whereas a straight ball encounters far more difficulty."

Patrick:

I don't agree with that. Most players really don't know how to shape the golf ball or shape a shot with a golf ball. I can do both and when I want to shape the golf ball I almost always do it with a really big hammer. Unfortunately, my shaped golf balls aren't very reliable for shaping shots, at least not in the intended shot shape.

[Joe Hancock]

Mark Ferguson,

I do believe I stated my position clearly, when I said "too much emphasis".

Some instances of required shotmaking is indeed good for the golfer, as it makes them not only think, but to learn to execute as well. However, when the shotmaking requirements override the ultimate enjoyability of a golf course, I tend to think it isn't a "good for golf" type of design.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I keep hearing that we can't work the ball like we used to.  

I'll bet you can still hit a low running hook to get near a pin tuck left on the green.

I can.

And, I did it just the other day.

The only problem was that the shot called for a high fade. [/color]

Tommy,

I discussed this issue with Hale Irwin a while ago.
His take was that while he could work the ball it took a greatly exaggerated swing to do so and with that greatly exaggerated swing the margins of error for a bad swing with equally bad results increased.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"I was thinking about a similar configuration, the Redan green, and how shaping/working the ball makes playing the hole easier, whereas a straight ball encounters far more difficulty."

Patrick:

I don't agree with that. Most players really don't know how to shape the golf ball or shape a shot with a golf ball. I can do both and when I want to shape the golf ball I almost always do it with a really big hammer. Unfortunately, my shaped golf balls aren't very reliable for shaping shots, at least not in the intended shot shape.

TEPaul,

I'll bet, when your father was teaching you, that one of the things he taught you was to shape the ball, for a variety of reasons.

Today, I'd doubt that there's as much emphasis on that phase of the game.

And as such, there's been a narrowing of the dimensions in which we play.

[Garland Bayley]

TEPaul,

If you can shape the ball with a hammer, you are a stronger man than I am.

The current ball will do big hooks and slices, because they spin more with increased club face angle. It is the fine control over fades and draws that is difficult, thereby causing Hale Irwin to comment on the exaggeration of the swing necessary.

[tlavin]

I would think that the answer to this is a self-evident, "Yes".  I'm guessing that, even though great players say the "new" balls fly much straighter and that they "can't work" the ball the same, the consequences aren't all that dramatic for them.  As for the rest of us slobs, the inability to "work" the ball is probably a good thing if one believes that the new balls fly straighter than their predecessors.  I wouldn't think that the architects on this site would utilize this in their design calculus to any meaningful extent, but I'd sure be interested to hear...

[Doug Siebert]

Pat, I keep hearing that we can't work the ball like we used to.  I'll bet you can still hit a low running hook to get near a pin tuck left on the green.

I was assuming Patrick was talking about driver tee shots, not approach shots.  It is much harder to work the ball off the tee with a modern driver, but still pretty easy to do with irons.  You really have to have a pretty large difference in face angle and swing path to curve the ball appreciably with a modern driver, which makes it all that more difficult to do in a controlled manner, so I should think shots that really require it off the tee would be a great way to distinguish a merely competent player from one who is truly skilled.

I used to have a great power fade I could call upon at will from the tee which served me well, but now the only way to get that power fade without losing distance due to the much higher trajectory and spin rate resulting from the wide open face requires a slightly open face and hitting the ball off the toe of the driver.  Its just too difficult to pull off consistently, so I've given up on the power fade and just (attempt to) play every driver as a dead straight moon shot and hit over whatever the hell you try to put in my way.

Of course even with iron shots you have to be pretty skillful to work the ball in a precise and consistent manner.  I had a shot on a par 3 Tuesday that was perfect for fading a 6 iron in to get close to the pin that was cut back right behind a big ridge and make the birdie I felt I was "owed" because I'd missed short birdie putts on 2 and 3.  I over faded it and left myself short sided and was rewarded with a double bogey for my trouble, so perhaps I shouldn't even try

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

If we accept what you say about the driver as true, does the USGA have it right, that the competitive solution is to narrow the fairways ?

And, under the trickle down theory, should architects be exploring narrowed fairways as SOP in their new designs ?

Have the corridors of play been narrowed sufficiently that it's time to change the features associated with fairways and their configuration ?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I agree that it is more difficult to shape a shot with the driver.
A friend of mine just bought the square Callaway driver.  There is no bulge on the face and no matter what you do it really does not hook or slice.  

Does the fact that it takes so much more effort to turn the driver negatively impact our form and technique?

[Doug Siebert]

Patrick,

That's ONE competitive solution.  Another might be more interesting if they kind of zig zagged the fairway a bit in the landing area (like an S turn or two) that narrowed the "straight down the middle" area to 15-20 yards, but left the actual width at a more USGA traditional 30 yards.  Then you make use of a wider fairway by either working the ball, or controlling/knowing your distance off the tee.  If you want to play straight and don't know how far it is going, you better be VERY accurate!

I'm not sure how that would really look or work in practice, but I think it would at least be worth thinking about versus the easier reaction of just narrowing things.

Of course, on a F&F course with lots of trees, widening the fairway so offline drives might bounce into the trees and leave the player more screwed than if he was in the rough.  But it would need to have trees pretty close to the edges of the normal fairway, if the corridor is 60 yards wide the trees aren't likely to come into play very often.  Plus that's only good until it rains, then the pros will eat the place alive.  Anyway, I think the USGA won't like that option because it means they have to keep the galleries further away from the action; if they don't guys like Tiger and Phil who have large followings aren't likely to roll into trouble as a friendly foot will intervene.


Tommy,

I haven't tried one of those square faced drivers yet, but I remember people saying the same thing about big headed drivers when they came out.  If anyone still believes that about the standard big headed drivers, I will be happy to show a counterexample, if you play 18 holes with me the odds are pretty good I'll hit at least one drive that curves at least 30 yards left, and on a good day quite a bit more

So I remain skeptical of your statement that "no matter what you do it really does not hook or slice".  I think you have to look at that statement in the light of the saying about how anyone who claims something is "foolproof" merely hasn't met a big enough fool!  I haven't played with anyone swinging one of those ugly sticks yet, when I do I'll have to take a few whacks and see what happens.  The lack of bulge is interesting.  Is there also no roll?  That would eliminate the gear effect that reduces spin for balls hit high on the face so I'm not sure that would be a good thing.