Growing Rough Is Better Than Adding Length

[Tim_Weiman]

You may recall someone recently asked about the role of rough in golf architecture.  There seemed to be very little dissent from the conventional wisdom that thick rough is undesirable.  My attempts to argue in favor of very penal, USGA style set ups for the US Open found very little support here.

Essentially, my argument went as follows:

1) Thick, penal rough IS undesirable for everyday play.

2) The major championships should be viewed as a unique set of events for a small elite group of golfers.

3) Each major should present a different kind of test than the other majors.  To the greatest extent possible, they should be played on different kinds of courses, with different set ups and consciously emphasize different golf skills.

4) One major should place a strong emphasis on accuracy, the ability to hit the ball straight.

5) The US Open is the most logical candidate for placing an emphasis on accuracy.

Almost everyone disagreed with me offering the usual arguments:

“major championships should emphasize all around golfing skills”

“you shouldn’t take the driver out of their hands”

“you take away the concept of risk reward if you penalize golfers one stroke for barely missing a green or fairway”.

And so on.

I was all set to just “agree to disagree” until being treated to Torrey Pines this weekend, where a few million dollars have been spent lengthening and toughening the course for the sole purpose of attracting a US Open.

I’m no expert on Torrey Pines, but having lived in Southern California and played the courses a few times I can’t see any point in the money invested to attract the US Open.  Both courses were already plenty long and tough enough for 99% of the people who play them on a regular basis.  Indeed, my experience has been that very few golfers (a minority so small as to not being worth worrying about) really need more than 6,200-6,500 yards to have all the challenge they can handle.

All adding length and difficulty will do is increase the cost of playing Torrey Pines.  Ditto for any other venue which goes down the same road.  Moreover, from a purely golfing point of view, why would anyone want to emphasize “absolute length” over “relative length”?

“Relative length” rewards the man with the skill to hit the ball further than his competitors.  That is how it should be.

“Absolute length” doesn’t reward anyone.  It just makes playing the game more expensive.  It would be far better if the longest players hit drives 275 yards rather than 325 yards, while average man still hit the ball 10-20% less.

Now back to the issue of rough.

It seems that the USGA has no intention of rule changes that bring the golf technology arms race under control.  Quite the contrary, they seem to be promoting the idea of “absolute” rather than “relative” length: both Torrey Pines and Riviera are being encouraged to significantly lengthen their courses.  Perhaps they just don’t get it.  Or maybe the USGA believes they will lose in court.

So why not come up with a far more economical solution to the growing disparity between the course length required for everyday play and what is required to test the big boys?

Isn’t growing very thick, penal rough once every ten years a far better solution than spending money to lengthen courses?  Why not deliberately nullify the corrupting influence of technology by making US Open fairways so narrow that the mere attempt to bomb away thoughtlessly with the driver will become a sure method for defeat?  Why not tame the technology problem in a way that does not require or permit legal action?  Why not undermine the costly fetish for length by emphasizing accuracy?  Wouldn’t that be far better for Joe Sixpack?

We all hate thick, penal rough, but wouldn’t using lots of it at US Opens actually do more to preserve the architecture of our classic courses than the mindless road we are now headed down?

If we are going to allow professional level players to play our classic courses, we need to re-think our opposition to USGA style set ups.  We need to make the rough thicker and more penal.  We need to make the fairways even harder to hit.

Ironically, it may be the ONLY way to preserve good architecture.

[APBernstein]

Tim:

Neither options are a preferrable solution to the problem at hand.  With that said, your argument on the behalf of longer rough is the best band-aid for the game (at least as far as majors are concerned).

No length can hide the faults in a course such as Torrey Pines, nor can rough hide the ill-advised changes at Augusta National.   If anything, in the case of The Masters, they are only intensified.

I really wish there was a concrete answer to this growing problem.  A competition ball or equipment limits sound good in theory, but they are just hypotheticals.

[Mark_Fine]

Tim,
Interesting comments.  I just wonder what the discussions were like on subjects like this many many years ago when they were introducing the Haskell ball or eliminating hickory shafts,...and so on??  When is the "right" time to stop technology progress?  There must have been discussions like this ever since the game's first equipment innovation!
Mark  

[David_Elvins]

Just a few thoughts.
 I think the lengthening of courses is the best way to go as it restores the shot values that the course was intended to have when it was designed.  ie. a green that was designed to be hit with a long iron is will again be hit with a long iron.  

The use of high rough at US Open courses is especially ridiculous around the greens.  How often do you hear the pros say, as their approach is in the air, "get in the bunker."  All of the sudden the architectural feature that was designed to instil the most fear in the player has become the bail out area.  THis has totally vandalised the architect's intention for the hole and in most cases made it stategically easier as what used to be the bail out area for the tee shot is now also the preferred angle of approach.

However, what you say about having a unique flavour for each major does have some merrit.  I  think however, just by playing the US Open on the classic courses of America, this goal is acomplished.  

One other thing to think about.  WHich major championship ( and therefor course set up)  produces the most worthy winner?  I have ben thinking about this for the last 10 years or so and it would definetly seem to me that the winner, top 3, and top 10 lists for the Masters and British Open are  higher ranked players than the same for the PGA and US OPen. (Carnoustie would seem to be an exception that proves the rule).
I would actually like to prove this statistically.  Does anyone know of any resource that would allow me to check the world raking of players at the time of each major over the last 15 years or so?

Cheers,

[Tim_Weiman]

Andrew:

Thanks for recognizing the spirit of my comments.  Exceptionly penal rough is obviously not an ideal solution, but I really do believe it is a better way to go than adding length and costs for the average player.  The USGA doesn't seem comfortable taking on the real source of the problem, so maybe we should encourage them to go with an approach that is more up their alley.  Unless we address the technology issue, all the well intended arguments against very penal rough merely serve to perpetuate the problem.

Mark Fine:

The golf industry has a very funny notion of technology "progress".  Is it "progress" when technology merely serves to increase the cost of the game for the average player?  Shouldn't we be encouraging the golf industry to do the exact opposite?

I grew up in the oil industry.  Every single application of technology I know of has been used to lower the cost of petroleum products to consumers.  Today I work in the information technology business.  Again, technology is used to lower costs.

So when is the "right time"?  Now.  Why wait?


David Elvins:

I don't know which major identifies the "most worthy winner".  I just want to make it very difficult for one player to win different majors.

Beyond that, if it is striking fear in the hearts of players you want, doesn't very penal rough do exactly that?  Don't you want to get inside their head?  Make them question whether hitting driver is the right play?  Don't we have enough tournaments where the pros play bombs away with their drivers knowing there really isn't much penalty for missing fairways?

As for preserving shot values, keep in mind that most golfers really can't handle more than 6,200-6,500 yards.  We don't need to length classic course to preserve shot values.  We just need to avoid catering to professional level golfers.

[Lou Duran]

I generally concur with Tim's comments/suggestions, though I would prefer making the rough less punitive around the greens and first 5-10 yards on either side of the fairways, say 1/2 stroke, and more costly the further the ball strays.  I particularly dislike when the balls runs through the fairway or green into the deepest, lushest hay on the course.  Unfortunately, the high rough takes the driver out of the longer player's hands, but if more moderate rough is maintained close in, this could lead to more exciting shot making with long irons and around the greens.  

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

A couple of quick points.

First, Torrey Pines / South is not that good of a golf course --even with the improvements made by Rees Jones. This I have to qualify from JUST watching on TV. I'll be playing the course later this year to confirm my own impressions. Are the improvements better than what was there. From a distance it appears so.

Second, the layout of Torrey is weak because few, if any of the key holes, actually take advantage of the close proximity to the natural edges of the hills overlooking the ocean.

As a qualifier I would like to know from someone who might have attended if the REAL back tees were used for all the rounds on the South. Too many times you get the listing of the total length in the newspapers but tournament officials will push the markers up on a few holes (i.e. 18th, to name just one).

As far as your take on rough is concerned. I do not find the option of people hacking out SW's back to the fairway as golf. That is taking the penalty of missing a fairway by six feet WAY over the top.

In addition, the element of rough only accentuates the role of luck. People who miss the ball by a few feet may be left with no shot except a pitch out, while those who miss by a mile get the advantage of ground chomped down by the gallery.

Strategic golf courses can be designed that bolster overall shotmaking skills. Hitting the ball straight is one key elelement in any player's arsenal -- it is not the only ingredient.

Let the players play is my motto. Yes, you have to "toughen" the course, but do so in a manner that the winner will really be the person who has played the finest overall golf -- not someone who lucks their way around because they had a lights-out putting week or bunt the ball out there 240-250 yards.

High rough / hay (right off pristine fairways to clarify) is an absolute admission by those preparing a course that they have nothing else to offer. It is also a clear admission, in my opinion, that the existing course has little strategic value and therefore must resort to gimmicks to maintain the farce that a bonafide championship has been contested on that layout.

As far as every day play is considered I think that rough should be no more than 2-3 inches in height maximum. People look for lost balls like the FBI searching for terrorists. And, should someone hit a Pro V-1 in the hay you can be sure they will be looking for awhile to recoup their investment. How do I know this. I can remember many rounds on Bethpage Black in years past when six hour golf was par for the course because of high rough conditions.

I hear what you're saying Tim but let's not confuse the game played by the world's best and the rest of humanity. I don't like the idea the USGA has fallen asleep at the switch. But lengthening courses, with sensible rough, is a good combination for the elite players. Again, from a distance and without having played the course, I don't see Torrey Pine / South as being much of venue for a possible Open -- not when Riviera is an option to consider.

Just an opinion ...

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Based on my experience, neither course at Torrey Pines is anything special.  They are decent enough municipal courses with very heavy demand for play from local golfers.  We all fall into the trap of wanting to visit courses where PGA events are held, but honestly, Torrey Pines is not worth a special trip.  For courses in its class, I'd rather go play Sandpiper up in Santa Barbara or even Los Verdes in Palos Verdes.  Spending a bunch of money to attract a US Open course is not in the interest of the average golfer.  He would like to play more not pay more.

That's the problem with your idea of lengthening courses to accomodate elite level golfers: inevitably the bill is paid by Joe Sixpack.

Growing rough once every ten years or so isn't a great solution.  It is just better than taxing the average guy for course "improvements" he doesn't have any need for.

Your talk about "bunting" the ball 240-250 yards is an example of the fetish for length.  It's all about an emphasis on "absolute length" rather than the more important concept of "relative length".  

Let the players play?  I'd prefer forcing them to think before pulling out a driver.  Encouraging a blend of drivers, three woods and long irons isn't going way over the top.  It is just a more severe mental test than the big boys are used to.

All the talk about strategic golf is fine, but not at the cost of forcing average golfers to pay for an elite to blast 325 yard drives when they show up once every ten years.

[David_Elvins]

Tim,

I would be intested to know why you think that most golfers can't handle a course of more that 6,200 to 6,500 yards.  

When I was a teenager a got my hadicap down to 12 (better than most golfers) before I was able to hit the longest Par 4 in two.  Do you think that golfers are developing unreasonable expectations that they should be able to reach holes in regulation or are there some other reasons why golfers cant handle tracks longer than 6,500?  

The great courses of the "golden age" could have had 50% of the holes unreachable for the average player. (Can anyone improve on this wild guess?)  So wouldn't that logically say that a modern course would need to be over 7,500 to be a classic for years to come.  (Proided it also had the many many many other design characteristics that make a classic.)  

Cheers,

[Tim_Weiman]

David,

I came to the conclusion that most people can't handle more than 6,200 -6,500 yards by observing golfers for the past forty years.

One clue is going to a place like Dooks, especially when the wind is blowing.  Even though the course plays less than 6,000 yards, most people have all they can handle.

Alternatively, don't you think places like Crystal Downs or Cypress Point have survived quite nicely without being stretched to 7,000?

And what about good old Prestwick?  Does it really need any more length?

Among the world's great courses, the one I play most frequently is Ballybunion.  Any suggestion that the vast majority of people playing the course need it to be longer makes very little sense to me.  6,500 yards is more than most local members or visitors will ever need.  The only way that won't be true twenty five years from now is if we get even more silly with technology.

[Matt_Ward]

TimW:

Just to clarify, I have played pre-Torrey before the changes made by Rees Jones. To be fair to the course, even players admitted they were most fortunate to have played the course without much wind. How much of an impact that might have had in the final outcome is a question to be answered.

Without us going in circles over and over again -- all I'm saying is that the desire to fall back on rough / hay is not how you really identify who is the best golfer. It's a desperate tactic used to bolster layouts that usually have few real inherent strategic qualities. I can take just about any course and narrow the fairway to 20 yards across and grow Kanas wheat rough on the sides of each hole. What happens? The same predictable boring style you often see in many US Opens.

I do believe that courses need to assess themselves given the technology that exists. If there is an issue with technology it's not the responsibility of the courses -- it belongs with the USGA! If courses have the room / $$ to expand holes to stay "competitive" then so be it. Many times people who complain about length being added are the same ones who don't have length to start with and therefore believe that taking the driver out of a player's hand is the best way to equalize things. That to me is misguided thinking.

The marriage between length and accuracy needs to be carefully assessed with appropriate and fair minded application. The US Open should determine who is the most complete golfer under conditions that are comprehensive, fair / tough and above all else consistent.

Tim, there is no skill in hacking out of 6-8 inch hay just off the fairway. Ditto -- the same length of grass just off greens. What happens is that excessive rough only accentuates aspects of luck and as a result you actually do far more harm in determining who is the best player. Courses like Oakmont, WF / West and SH, to name just three, have plenty of juice to keep all types of players honest. One doesn't have to resort to gimmicks. I see no harm in having certain holes lengthened to deal with modern technology. As long as the courses are not completely perverted I see that as being a natural item of evolution until the USGA finally decides what must be done with issues of technology in the game.

Hope this helps ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

The roughs at GCGC are extremely punitive !

You do not want to be in them at any location, BUT.....
The fairways are extremely WIDE.

One cannot evaluate rough without correlating it to fairway or target width.

[Peter Galea]

Let me say that while I abhor searching for balls and digging deep in cabbage, it would certainly be a lot easier and less expensive to grow rough than lengthen courses. I say let the pros and top ams shoot zero and let the "everyman" play golf.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pete Gelea:

Thanks for recognizing my point.  I wish more people got it.  I hate the idea of rough too.  It's just that wasting money on a golf technology arms race makes even less sense.  The really smart golf clubs keep the pros away and don't have to do either!


Matt Ward:

I see we remain in disagreement on many points.

First, let me say that if you are waiting for the USGA to address the technology issue, don't hold your breath.  There is no evidence they intend to do anything.

You say it is not the responsibility of the courses to address the problem.  How about a reality check?  Aren't courses already acting as if it is their responsibility?  Isn't the USGA encouraging them to do so?  

Don't we have a reverse Robin Hood situation?  Aren't we asking the vast majority of golfers who only need about 6,200 yard courses to pay for a small elite that requires 7,500 yards?

You suggest lengthening courses is a "natural evolution".  Why is that?  Why should the absolute length of golf courses be increased when all we really want to test is relative length?

You suggest people who "complain about length being added are the same ones who don't have length to start with".  Are you saying people who resist an emphasis on accuracy are really complaining about tough USGA set ups because they can't hit the ball straight?

Just to be clear: the reason I complain about length being added is because I see no point in emphasizing absolute length when all you need to test is relative length.  Why is it so hard for people to understand this point?  Why is it so hard to understand that emphasizing absolute length is nothing more than a big waste of money?

You suggest I want to take the driver out of the players hand.  Not true.  What I want is to force the player to think before pulling out the driver.  I want to get inside his head.  I want to test his judgement, his self confidence, his ability to balance length and accuracy, his ability to handle pressure.

Do you really believe US Opens are boring?  How about the typical PGA tour event?  Haven't you noticed: Driver, 9 iron, Driver, Pitching wedge, Driver 8 iron, Driver sand wedge?  Isn't that the epitome of boring?

Finally, we seem to also disagree on the roll of luck.  Are you suggesting luck has no place in the game?  Exactly how would you adjust British Open courses to eliminate luck?

Oh, and one more thing since you mentioned Oakmont.  Here is what I hope the USGA will do for the 2007 Open: go to the membership, inform them they don't need to spend money on a consulting architect or to make any changes to the course.  The USGA should simply tell them they intend to deploy the most penal set up in US Open history.

The pros will cry like babies and the members will love it.  Temporary insanity?  Maybe.  But, I'll take that over a steady march toward permanent insanity.

[Rick Shefchik]

Tim -- I am in substantial agreement with you. I see no end to the current mania for lengthening courses because once a year the pros eat it up, or once every couple of weeks a  college kid comes out and shoots 67s.

I would suggest, however, that there other ways in concert with growing the rough to make such courses tougher for pros while not unduly penalizing the paying customers with punitive length (and its associated costs.)

It has been suggested here that great courses don't need long rough. Perhaps not, but they need something. Augusta National has trees; Pebble Beach has cliffs; the great British courses have pot bunkers. Trees take a long time to grow and aren't right for every course, and much as we'd like to, we can't all have seaside cliffs.

But what about pot bunkers? I don't mean the flat sand pits that pass for fairway bunkers on most courses, from which most of us can reach the green with a 5-iron at least half the time. I'm talking about those holes into which we constantly see slightly off-line or too-long drives roll into at the British Open. The ones where you sometimes need to pitch out sideways, or backwards. These would have the same effect as extra-long rough, yet would not unduly hold up the pace of play while players hunt for the their Pro V-1s, nor would every off-line shot meet the same fate. Some would nestle between bunkers; luck of the draw, but not something you'd want to count on.

I supposed the membership wouldn't be much happier about this solution, either, but for courses where other natural elements aren't present to give a guy pause when he reaches for a driver, some combination of rough and pot bunkers ought to do the trick.

This would also be a nice touch around the greens, in lieu of the ankle-deep rough that takes the chipping game out of golf. I think thick rough is a fair penalty, but keep it away from the greens. Create chipping areas instead, and pot bunkers into which errant approach shots will often roll.

Better than more sets of back tees.

Rick

[Tim_Weiman]

Rick,

I'm basically opposed to changing classic courses just for the sake of hosting professional golfers once a decade.  Growing thick rough near landing areas and around greens is not an ideal solution, but at least it can be quickly cut back when the pros leave town.

Deploying pot bunkers strikes me as a different approach all together.   It's really a permanent change rather than a temporary, inexpensive band aid.  I'd rather preserve the courses for everyday play than figure out permanent ways to change a course just to accommodate pros.

Then, too, there is the question of fitting in with the rest of the design.  Do we really want to populate Winged Foot or Oakmont with pot bunkers?

I'd be more open to your concept with new designs and I've often thought of the concept of deploying "mine fields" at some distance from the tee (say 285-315).  George Crump built a "no man's land" bunker on #7.  Maybe there is a spin that doesn't rule out the real long driver altogether but certainly asks a golfer to think if he feels lucky.

[Crossbunker]

Gentlemen,

Fairway bunkers that were originally placed on golf courses by Raynor, Ross, Tillinghast and any other great architects of the twenties will at some point be in play for even that Woods kid. If you replaced al of the cross bunkers at NGLA do you think that he would at some point hit his ball into a steep and deep cross bunker? What these newer courses are lacking today is STRATEGY. That is why the US OPEN and BRITISH OPEN are so interesting. What if ANGC added 50 more cross bunkers in say the "RAYNOR TRADEMARK STYLE". Would it be tougher with out the rough? On 18 at Bethpage the bunkers narrowed the fairways to nothing. They hit irons of the tee. If we want to we can slightly lenghten courses and add or restore all of our croos bunkering to make a course more difficult.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

Don't know why I hadn't read this thread before. We've had this discussion before but now you're making another point and a very interesting one. Or maybe I should say you're making the same point in a very different context and its an excellent point in your new context.

As Andrew and some others said, growing high rough as a general practice in strictly an architectural sense is not a great idea.

But you're saying the USGA should do it to send a message to the manufacturers that if they're not inclined to cooperate on reasonable distance control--here's what the USGA plans to do about it! No added length, just higher rough and narrower fairways. Certainly that's a better point than just encouraging increased distance by continually accomodating it!

It's certainly a tougher, more honest point for the USGA to make! Unfortunately the USGA only has the opportunity to do this effectively in one tournament a year--The US Open--but still it a great message if they publicize it for the reasons they're doing it.

In a way they'd then be something like Ian MacAllister, the ad satire the manufacturers are floating to the public to embarrass the ASGCA!

It's clearly not lost on me that the man might have on a plaid jacket (different color than the ASGCA plaid) but the message from the manufacturers also includes the USGA!

What you're basically saying is the USGA should just say; "OK goddamnit, if you're going to be so disrespectful as to shove Ian MacAllister as a satire of us in our face then that's exactly what we're going to become. And then it would be great if the ASGCA made the same point!

But both organizations should explain that they don't recommend doing it to the Everyman golfer (as the ad suggests they will) but only for the touring pro where the added distance is making far more difference!

Growing rough this way in a selective event makes a great point and is the point you're making. They shouldn't just do it, though, they should be damn clear why they're doing it!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Soem great perspectives here by many. You too Andrew, some really good insight.

I find it hard to fathom how anybody can even think about doing major changes to a golf course for a one-week affair, grant you, taking into account the monies made from Bethpage--once again, Commercialism rears its ugly head and the design of the gof course is all a part of it.

Al of this translates into what Joe Q. Public enviosions what golf courses are supposed to play like because major championships are played inthe same vein. Test or not, I want to enjoy this game not by being thrown to the wolves, but by being challenged by mountains I want to climb. Spending a day searching for lost golf balls--the product of well hit shots is not one of them, nor is the waste of a beautiful California sunset while being beaten to death. Torrey Pines is not a US Open-quality site and even the USGA knows it.

While there may not be a written rule on what constitutes a US Open venue, there certainly seems to be a  list of architects that sell to their clients the possibility of claim. Torrey Pines has nothing to lose by pumping millions into their facility because of the setting alone. They know it/Rees knows it, and so does the USGA--the perfect bargaining chip.

Big money is at stake here and using club's for bargaining is an old pastime here in SoCal. The NFL has been doing the same with pro football teams for the last ten or so years. Kudo's to the powers that be in the USGA for observing as such and following suit. Their abilities as businessman and entrepaneurs is quite interesting. While I don't condone such tactics, it is obvious that they hold the keys to the car, and their are lots of people that are anxious to take a test drive.

Will it be Riviera?
Will it be Torrey Pines?
Will it be Pumpkin Ridge?

Or will it be just a way for the USGA to secure an even better deal with the Olympic Club or Pebble Beach at the last minute?
Whisper note***(Please notice how Golfweek staffers are now reporting that Riviera is now in line for the 2010 Open; a date normally reserved for Pebble Beach. You don't think that they could possibly be serving the powers that be at Pebble to cut a better deal now do you?)

So, is growing rough better then adding length for US Open candidates that have no chance of attaining the National Championship?

Maybe some serious ad time can help in this cause. After all, it's all about the money now isn't it?

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

Thanks for your comments.  I agree with your point that the USGA should be clear about the rationale for growing heavy rough for the annual Open and that this doesn't mean they are encouraging it for everyday play.

It does seem like some of the criticism the USGA receives includes the suggestion that their set ups "aren't real golf" or "good architecture".

But, spending ever increasing amounts of money in the never ending golf technology arms race isn't "good architecture" either, in my opinion.

[Chris Hervochon]

I am going to disagree on this topic.  Granted I see nothing wrong with adding rough, and I see nothing wrong with adding length.  I think basically the discussion here is to make it so that pros don't shoot as low, or don't tear up classical courses.  It really is ridiculous how far the ball goes and how easy these new drivers are to hit.  Even I am reaching 560 yard par 5's in two, and really, you have to wonder if that makes it a par 5 or just a really hard par 4.  Really, you can eiter make golf harder or just accept the fact that pros are going to shoot low.  The reason why pros shoot so low, and my pro feels the same way, is that the game has become almost robotic.  The best players are machines, and believe it or not, it is possible to perfect ballstriking.  My pro even went so far as to say that it's a joke that pros have very little thought process.  Therefore, I feel that the way for them to not make a mockery of the game is to make them think when they play.  You can perfect ballstriking, but the mental game can't be perfected, and conditions always change.  So make them think I say!  That's how you ake the game touger!

[TEPaul]

I would love it if the old cliche (probably from Pete Dye originally) were true; "Get those pros thinking and then you have them", but unfortunately it isn't.

It sounds funny, it's a cute phrase but it's not true and never has been. It's certainly possible to present them with things in architecture they might not like and might make them uncomfortable, like Pete's famous #17 TPC, but the idea they don't or can't think on a golf course is preposterous.

They hit the ball far better than we do and they think far better than we do--so much so in fact it's scary!!

Just play a round with a tour pro sometime and you'll see what I mean--they have all the information, they think and do things that have probably never occured to some of us!

[redanman]

They hit the ball far better than we do and they think far better than we do--so much so in fact it's scary!!

Tom

Don't you think that it is ironic how the "game development" changes in equipment, especially the driver has paradoxically helped the best players the most?

Do you think the differences between the top groups of players were less with the old equipment?  I kinda do.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

That's a really good question--a very interesting one. Yes, I do think "game developement" changes in equipment has helped the best players the most.

But it's interesting to look at where and how. I sure do agree that driver technology is probably the greatest help to the best players, probably with the ball close to the driver in being a benefit to them! The new 3 woods are a huge benefit too!

As for irons, I think much less so--since many of them don't even avail themselves of most of the cavity back/perimeter weighed advances that much. The so called muscle back concept is probably all they use that way although the whole Ping iron concept is certainly "modern" compared to pre Ping. Putters are probably quite a lot better and then there's the whole realm of specialty lofted irons that could very well be the biggest scoring benefit to them of all. The so-called L, 60* or Lob wedge is a huge benefit compared to the old days!

So sure "game development" changes have helped the best player more I suppose but I can't see a correlation that it's made them stop thinking or made them think less well!

As for the "Equipment changes" making tour pros more "robotic"--sure it has because they don't need to be the "shot makers" they used to be with this new equipment but still that doesn't mean they think less or can't think when and if they have to!

If for some odd reason a tour pro had to be a "shot maker" again it would probably take him about an hour to be that!

[TEPaul]

And as for "shot making" being dead--not totally! Where the heck did Woods get his "stinger" 2 iron tee shot? How about that "hold the finish" 3 wood he has in reserve for the wind in Europe that gets no more than 10 ft off the ground and gets out there about 270 into the wind? Where did that come from? He invented it or seriously perfected it as far as I'm concerned. I've been watching tour golf for a long time and I sure don't recall anyone using shots like that before--or even being able to hit them at all!