Long driving is not a crime

[Garland Bayley]

Jim, they certainly should be held to the same standard, which is exactly why the landing area for long hitters should be wider.

Let's say you have a short hitter who drives 220 yards (about average for 16 handicapper). If that person misses the target by 3 degrees, that means that he will miss the target by 11.5 yards wide, which is probably still in the fairway for a 30 yard wide fairway.

Compare that to a long hitter who hits 300 yards. If that person misses the target by 3 degrees just like the short hitter, he misses his target by 15.7 yards. Now he is now hitting from the rough even though the missed by the same amount as the short hitter, even though it requires greater skill to be accurate at higher speed.

If you want to hold players to the same standard, you need to have a wider landing areas for long hitters.

Richard, Richard, Richard,

The logic professor asks you to reconsider and resubmit your thesis. The committee is not in your favor at this point.
 

[Garland Bayley]

I have never heard of such backward thinking.  What, can't a guy tone it down?  No, the guy going for the big ball to gain whatever advantage is on offer should more often than not have to pull off an excellent shot.  There isn't much point in rewarding big balls for the sake of it especially when it can be bought at the pro shop.  No, if a guy wants to bang, he must take the blame if he isn't dead accurate. 

Sean, that is certainly a valid design decision one can take. However, if that is the philosophy, you have to also admit that you are requiring long hitters to higher standard.

The committee is becoming downright antagonistic towards your thesis now. I don't know if it can be saved!

[Richard Choi]

Garland, my thesis stands

[Peter Pallotta]

If a guy blows it 50 yards by me on the correct line, he should have an advantage.  The crime is not in distance but in courses whose main defense is length....

Exactly. It is an example of a larger architectural crime - courses that play easiest for the best players and hardest for the weakest players.

Bob

Or an example of the fundamental truth that courses play hardest for those golfers saddled with the uneviable combination of middling talent and modest length.  While I'd suggest that those golfers learn to keep their scoring expectations suitably and realistically low and that they try to curb their obvious (and unattractive) envy of those with more abilities, I would nonetheless opine that perhaps the fact that such golfers continue to comprise the largest segment of the golfing population should ideally have (or have had) some measurable effect on the art and principles of golf course architecture.

Peter

[Garland Bayley]

From an article I did in 2002 called Democratic design.

Figure 1 on left is one concept of strategic design, giving advantage to the long hitter.
Figure 2 moves the bunker into the long hitter's landing area and provides width and approach angle to the short hitter (and long hitter if he challenges the bunker). Essentially, the longer the drive, the tougher the approach angle (but a shorter shot).

It does not take into effect the 3 dimensional nature (blindness, wind, topography) of golf design that affects both strategies.

You do not say, but I assume you mean both belong on a golf course.

[BCrosby]

Ted - C&C's first hole at Cuscowilla looks a lot like your hole. It falls somewhere between your two iterations. It is a very, very good hole.

Bob

[Matthew Petersen]

I have never heard of such backward thinking.  What, can't a guy tone it down?  No, the guy going for the big ball to gain whatever advantage is on offer should more often than not have to pull off an excellent shot.  There isn't much point in rewarding big balls for the sake of it especially when it can be bought at the pro shop.  No, if a guy wants to bang, he must take the blame if he isn't dead accurate. 

Sean, that is certainly a valid design decision one can take. However, if that is the philosophy, you have to also admit that you are requiring long hitters to higher standard.

I think this is true and it's also the basis of most good GCA. You get rewarded for hitting a more difficult shot successfully.

[TEPaul]

"Long driving is not a crime--it is a virtue and is more frequently by skill and grace of motion than by mere force. Long drivers should be rewarded, and as a general rule they should have greater latitude, and not less, than short drivers.
"

ALISTER MACKENZIE

How do you take the great Doctor’s quote (it was on Shack’s site today)?"



Tim:

I don't agree with it, at least not that long drivers should be given greater latitude, and not less, than shorter drivers. I think the absolute reverse should generally be the case with really good golf architecture.

[Sean_A]

I have never heard of such backward thinking.  What, can't a guy tone it down?  No, the guy going for the big ball to gain whatever advantage is on offer should more often than not have to pull off an excellent shot.  There isn't much point in rewarding big balls for the sake of it especially when it can be bought at the pro shop.  No, if a guy wants to bang, he must take the blame if he isn't dead accurate. 

Sean, that is certainly a valid design decision one can take. However, if that is the philosophy, you have to also admit that you are requiring long hitters to higher standard.

Richard

Forget the idea of long hitter.  Concentrate on the philosophy of gaining the best of what is on offer.  No matter what it takes to earn this advantage, the shot should be of a higher standard than the guy who didn't attempt the challenge.  If you call this philosophy "requiring long hitters to higher standard", fine.  I prefer to say requiring the maximum advantage to be held at a higher standard. 

Ciao

[JESII]

Forget the idea of long hitter.  Concentrate on the philosophy of gaining the best of what is on offer.  No matter what it takes to earn this advantage, the shot should be of a higher standard than the guy who didn't attempt the challenge.  If you call this philosophy "requiring long hitters to higher standard", fine.  I prefer to say requiring the maximum advantage to be held at a higher standard. 

Ciao

Sean,

It seems like you are suggesting not only a positioning the tee ball side-to-side to gain the advantage, but at least as important is to hit the tee ball an appropriate distance (whatever that distance may be) to gain the maximum advantage...am I reading properly?

If so, I agree with the idea, but can you name a single hole - make it three holes (sorry to go MUCCI[/color] on you) that produce an approach position that is better than one can possibly gain by being 20 or 30 yards closer? I hope this isn't merely because the longer tee ball results in a short half wedge like Tom D referenced earlier...but a truly advantageous position to approach the green from that happens to be further from the green than an otherwise very playable spot.

[Tom Dunne]

Maybe it's a bit counterintuitive, but one of the reasons long driving is its own reward is that big hitters have the option to scale back for greater control. I'm a short hitter--quite happy if I get one to go 250. Needless to say, I hit drivers all day long. One of my best friends hits his 4-iron that far, and he'll use that club off the tee all day if that's how he's feeling, and then he starts getting surgical on a course. That's a luxury that the long player has that is perhaps even more valuable than where he maxes out with the driver.   

[Sean_A]

Forget the idea of long hitter.  Concentrate on the philosophy of gaining the best of what is on offer.  No matter what it takes to earn this advantage, the shot should be of a higher standard than the guy who didn't attempt the challenge.  If you call this philosophy "requiring long hitters to higher standard", fine.  I prefer to say requiring the maximum advantage to be held at a higher standard. 

Ciao

Sean,

It seems like you are suggesting not only a positioning the tee ball side-to-side to gain the advantage, but at least as important is to hit the tee ball an appropriate distance (whatever that distance may be) to gain the maximum advantage...am I reading properly?

If so, I agree with the idea, but can you name a single hole - make it three holes (sorry to go MUCCI[/color] on you) that produce an approach position that is better than one can possibly gain by being 20 or 30 yards closer? I hope this isn't merely because the longer tee ball results in a short half wedge like Tom D referenced earlier...but a truly advantageous position to approach the green from that happens to be further from the green than an otherwise very playable spot.

Sully

No, my argument was more about getting folks off the long ball idea and get them to focus on the best ball which I think most would agree should require something special.  Of course, placing the ball a certain distance is more about the comfort zone of a player and how he feels it is best to attack a hole. 

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

If so, I agree with the idea, but can you name a single hole - make it three holes (sorry to go MUCCI[/color] on you) that produce an approach position that is better than one can possibly gain by being 20 or 30 yards closer? I hope this isn't merely because the longer tee ball results in a short half wedge like Tom D referenced earlier...but a truly advantageous position to approach the green from that happens to be further from the green than an otherwise very playable spot.

Jim:

The course I played as a kid actually accomplished this.  It was originally built in about 1901, is on hilly terrain and the only obvious tee to green earth moving were some artificial looking flat spots on about six holes that afforded a level lie and a good angle to the green.  Hitting through the flat spots would yield a shorter approach but often on a significant down/sideslope.  I only needed to worry about it in the summer or fall when the course was firm but during those times it was an interesting decision with no clear cut answers.  The flat spot was probably the more advantagous location but it was hard to resist the extra distance.  

Unfortunately, since I was a kid they introduced irrigation to the fairways of the course and, as a result, many of the old flat spots are now in the rough.

[Pete Lavallee]

Richard,

I take it then, that in the perfect world every fairway would need to be shaped like an ice cream cone? Do we need to make allowace for Jason Zubek, should he desire to play your course, and have over 50 yards of width in the 400 yard drive region?

Why is it harder to hit the ball straight at higher swing speeds? If anything, when you can swing it fast you must by definition swing it correctly, no?

[JESII]

Why is it harder to hit the ball straight at higher swing speeds? If anything, when you can swing it fast you must by definition swing it correctly, no?

No - I can't tackle the other stuff, but swinging faster does not equate to swinging better.

[JESII]

Jason T,

That was the one design feature I thought might be able to do it, and I figured a particular course could probably do it a few times...also, in thinking about it...I argued with a couple people a few weeks ago that #18 at Merion will have severl players laying back on the top of the hill hoping to go at the Turtle-back green from 205 on a slight upslope rather than 165 on a significant downslope...I know I would recommend it, especially if they get the greens firm and the wind is helping.

#10 at Shinnecock also features this option...but it's a much larger difference than 20 or 30 yards...more like 90 once the ball gets going over the hill.

[Richard Choi]

Pete, I don't know about ice cream cone as the width change is pretty gradual. I would imagine most people wouldn't even notice the gradual widening of the fairways.

Swinging fast can be due to many factors; amount of fast twitch muscles, strength, flexibility, etc. Does not necessarily mean you are swinging better.

[JESII]

But Richard...imagine when you can only hit it 100 yards...you better be straight...

[Greg Tallman]

Maybe that is why long tour players like their golf design and short tour players like Dye’s?

Tim:

That's interesting.  In the 80's, some of the short hitters were convinced that Pete was trying to design them right off the Tour.  I remember asking Pete what he thought of that, and his response was similar to John K. Moore's, that if Jack Renner couldn't hit the ball even 250 yards with modern equipment, he probably didn't belong out there no matter how accurate he was!

Will you be sharing pint with them and enjoying their schoolmates take down the out of control beast that is UK?

[Bill_McBride]

Forget the idea of long hitter.  Concentrate on the philosophy of gaining the best of what is on offer.  No matter what it takes to earn this advantage, the shot should be of a higher standard than the guy who didn't attempt the challenge.  If you call this philosophy "requiring long hitters to higher standard", fine.  I prefer to say requiring the maximum advantage to be held at a higher standard. 

Ciao

Sean,

It seems like you are suggesting not only a positioning the tee ball side-to-side to gain the advantage, but at least as important is to hit the tee ball an appropriate distance (whatever that distance may be) to gain the maximum advantage...am I reading properly?

If so, I agree with the idea, but can you name a single hole - make it three holes (sorry to go MUCCI[/color] on you) that produce an approach position that is better than one can possibly gain by being 20 or 30 yards closer? I hope this isn't merely because the longer tee ball results in a short half wedge like Tom D referenced earlier...but a truly advantageous position to approach the green from that happens to be further from the green than an otherwise very playable spot.

With the disclosure first that I have never been to Augusta    wouldn't the lengthened #1 at ANGC be an example?  As I understand the present day version of the hole, it's a huge carry over the bunker but that's the best line, as a tee shot down the safer left side leaves a much harder second shot.    Laying up in front of the bunker on the better line would seem to meet your criteria above.

[Matt_Ward]

What's amazing about the discussion about long driving is that what others have said that playing somewhat shorter courses is a real equailizer.

Take for example Westchester CC where the old Buick Classic was played. Not very long but requires pinpoint placement on any number of holes. Length is still rewarded -- see what a few of the players did when cutting off the par-4 15th hole.

Frankly, often the folks who cry and whine about distance are envious of others who have that extra 30-40 yards in their tank.

Get a course like a Westchester CC and the spread that longer hitters have can be challenged appropriately and level the differences accordingly.

[Ian Andrew]

One of the very things Mike Weir brought up when we first got together was his favourite driving holes are on a slow curve. Colonial was the course he sited the most. He loved the fact that longer players could still play aggressive, but they also had to show some skill in either working the ball around the corner or risk playing to a smaller landing because of the shape of the fairway. He felt course like Colonial and Riviera reward players who think things through better than others.

[Anthony Butler]

Long Driving should be treated as misdemeanor, not a felony.

To that point, holes that place unreasonable limits on the distance you can hit it off the tee... any hole that has a barranca or water hazard crossing the fairway between 225 and 300 yards is not what I would consider good design.

[Matt_Ward]

Ian:

Winged Foot / West also fits that description -- getting holes to bend 15-30 degrees always makes the stronger player know that they need to blend power and the wherewithal to shape shots. The first part may be easier for them -- the 2nd often isn't.