[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

When I first wrote The Confidential Guide twenty-plus years ago, the world was still using persimmon drivers, and there were plenty of guys ON TOUR who weren't that good with them, to say nothing of everyone else.  Back then I didn't think it was fair to build a course where hitting driver was extremely important.

Now, of course, technology has changed all of that ... to the point where most people can hit a driver okay, and the only question is how fast some can swing to hit it way farther.  I think it's more a matter of strength (swing speed) than skill (technique, or consistently hitting the sweet spot), although I am certain you will argue that point.  Anyway, my take on that doesn't give me a great reason to emphasize driver play today, either.  The trick now is to figure out how to offset the bombers' advantage.


Carl:

I did not mean to imply that all short par-4's should be easy.  I just think they ought to be manageable.  And I wouldn't think the 7th at Riverfront is unduly hard for a good senior player, unless the hole is cut in the left side of the green, where you have to drive it way down the right side to get a good angle of attack.

[Will Peterson]

I am a scratch player who plays competitively and plays regularly with high level amateurs, mini-tour players, and PGA Tour pros.

I have found that most of the younger players don't really notice the architecture.  They are only thinking about scoring.  When I explain some of the features and they take a look at it, they realize the purpose and appreciate the different features.

The Tour pros seem to have two opinions.  When playing for practice or fun, they appreciate good design.  I have heard them tell stories about great courses and they rarely speak of things being "unfair."  When they do speak about courses on Tour, they seem to be more concerned about predictable outcomes.  After hearing a number of these stories, it appears to me that it is about making a living.  They don't like quirk on Tour because it is their living. 

The only time that I have been upset by quirk has been when it has come in a tournament when I didn't have a practice round.  There have been many tournaments that it was just not possible to get a practice round in, and when you run into some quirk when trying to score it can be frustrating.

[JR Potts]

Will - it is funny you mention that.  I too have the same experience.

My buddies on tour couldn't care less what "novelty" courses I'm playing.  I could be at Cypress Point and the first and only thing they'll ask is what I shot and how I played.

The GCA means very little - in fact, I don't even think they think about it.  In fact, the only time they'll ask about the course is if there's a major or a tournament there....and then, they'll likely ask, "is it fair"?

[Doug Siebert]

Low handicappers probably find it much harder to accept "bad" bounces as they really cannot afford to make too many mistakes. A 5 handicapper that drops a shot early on in a round because of a "bad" bounce is going to feel the pressure a little more as he's used up 20% of his allowed bogies. He can only make 4-5 mistakes in a round. I think low handicappers will also be more critical about course condition and also things such as pin locations.

I have to wonder about those in the 5 handicap range. I used to be one of them, and hope to be again. Any time I hear of a 5 handicapper scoffing at a 6000 yds course, I just say to myself "If you're so bloody long that you need to play 7000 yds courses, then why are you still playing off 5?. You're short game must be a disaster."

I do think that all courses should have at least one of two "stout" par 4s in the 440-460 yds range.

Donal,

I'm a 5 (or maybe a 6, haven't checked lately) and I'll say that any other single digit guys who think like you say there are doing themselves a real disservice.  If par was the best I could do on a hole then sure, one bogey will have used up 20% of my alloted shots.  But I can make birdies and occasionally eagles, which tend to offset my bogies (and would do a much better job of that if I didn't also make doubles and occasionally worse )  Now sometimes I might make only one birdie in a round and once or twice a season I might make five, so I never really know the amount of 'offset' in a given round.  But unless I'm playing a bear of a course or in really nasty conditions I'm probably going to assume I'll make up at least a couple strokes somewhere.  And its funny, but it seems that the days where I make the most birdies I also tend to need them more than other days.  Dunno if that's because I'm playing more aggressively those days or its simple regression to the mean and/or "fear of going low".

I'll admit I sometimes scoff at 6000 yard courses, but that's more of a generalization - I don't like courses where I've got a wedge to the green all the time.  I prefer variety.  For much the same reason you believe a course needs a couple of longer 'stout' par 4s.  That's not to say every 6000 yard course doesn't offer variety, there are plenty that do, especially in the UK where a 40+ mph wind can make an otherwise straightforward 300 yard par 4 a beast...no matter what the wind direction!

[Rob Rigg]

Absolutely - this is the foundation of US Open gripes.

"Sticks" like golf courses that play "pure" - if you hit a shot in the "right" spot then you should be rewarded - right

I think this is why tour pros take a while to warm up to St Andrews and other links courses in the UK. It is totally foreign to what you get on most country club courses on this side of the pond - truly a different game where luck - and the ability to deal with adversity - plays a significant role in the outcome.

[Carl Rogers]

Matt:

When I first wrote The Confidential Guide twenty-plus years ago, the world was still using persimmon drivers, and there were plenty of guys ON TOUR who weren't that good with them, to say nothing of everyone else.  Back then I didn't think it was fair to build a course where hitting driver was extremely important.

Now, of course, technology has changed all of that ... to the point where most people can hit a driver okay, and the only question is how fast some can swing to hit it way farther.  I think it's more a matter of strength (swing speed) than skill (technique, or consistently hitting the sweet spot), although I am certain you will argue that point.  Anyway, my take on that doesn't give me a great reason to emphasize driver play today, either.  The trick now is to figure out how to offset the bombers' advantage.


Carl:

I did not mean to imply that all short par-4's should be easy.  I just think they ought to be manageable.  And I wouldn't think the 7th at Riverfront is unduly hard for a good senior player, unless the hole is cut in the left side of the green, where you have to drive it way down the right side to get a good angle of attack.

Tom,
Your design of the 7th at Riverfront pre the 460 Titanium Driver and the ProV1 was extremely if not brilliantly forward looking.  Unless you can drive the green, the 25 yard shot is much much harder than the 90 yard shot.  A par is manageable if you have an 8 foot putt for a birdie.
It is the right hand pins that are so profoundly difficult if not stressfully nerve racking because of the fairway bunkering down the left slightly blind from the tee precludes that option.

[Steve Lang]

  a great two for one thread, get to besmirch 5 h'capers and raters..

YES THEY DO.  from my experience:

- first test (tee) is if they can't use driver, like too much of a dogleg or traps pinch their landing zone.. obviously a poor design,
- second test (fairway) is if they can't see most everything or know exact yardage to.. not fair to have that hazard hidden there right along _______ or over the ______ ,
- third test (green) is those features are either so subtle one can't read them across the green, especially with that grain or too extreme like Putt-Putt, can't aim at the hole.. all tricked up

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

From the conversations I had with the people I mentioned at the outset the common point was that courses that rely upon quirk are just "tricky" and that they really don't test the fullest range of shots -- namely the driver being used a certain amount of times. Clearly, there are various ways to skin the cat when playing but I wonder if such players just simply fail to adjust their games to the course they are playing.


Tom D:

Swinging fast is one element -- but delivering that speed on the ball squarely time after time is quite another.

Twenty some years ago swinging the persimmon face clubs with heavy spin balls was a great challenge. The clubs today allow for more freedom but those who bomb the ball get no advantage if they can't consistently tie two shots together.

Tom, if you want to make bombers work for it -- make them move the ball to some degree to get the desired result. Today's clubs are great for straight hitting but turning the ball over to both the left and right on command is much more demanding.

One last thing on the subject of distance -- those who have an aversion to it generally envy others who do have it.

[Niall C]

In my experience the really low guys tend to hit the ball way better than us mere mortals, no surprise there then, and in doing so mostly hit it straight. However like us mere mortals, I think they also want a challenge so prefer courses that penalise wayward hitting, but not to penalise the rest of us but more to challenge them. After all wheres the challenge of hitting in straight if theres no penalty to contend with.

I play at a course that is hard to play but it mainly has a singular challenge of being tight. The low guys love it and we have a number of local pro's as members as well as one touring pro. Now I would say that the course is fairly obvious in its challenge, its all about hitting it straight. The quirk factor doesn't really come into it.

Niall 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D:

Tom, if you want to make bombers work for it -- make them move the ball to some degree to get the desired result. Today's clubs are great for straight hitting but turning the ball over to both the left and right on command is much more demanding.

One last thing on the subject of distance -- those who have an aversion to it generally envy others who do have it.

Matt:

I've figured out the former partly from conversations here, as you should know from seeing Rock Creek.  Wicked Pony would make you work your driver, too, if it ever gets resuscitated.

As for the last comment, I guess I am just the exception to every rule.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Not related to this thread -- what are the course stats on Wicked Pony? I had a grand tour with one of the main players last year and was in awe of the scale of the place.

Did you consciously decide to go in a different direction in terms of presentation?

I was impressed with a number of the holes there.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

One of the founders at Wicked Pony was a former college player and a very long hitter, and from the beginning we were encouraged to make the course very long from the back and not so short from the front.  They were trying to position themselves as a destination as well as a second club for people with homes around Bend; they figured they could do so if they were going to build three courses (eventually).

Unfortunately that founder is on the outs with the rest of the investors for digging the hole they're in now.  If we do finish the course, I wonder if they will want us to soften it, because it certainly appeared to be difficult.

[Jim Sweeney]

It may be true that the majority of low handicap golfers prefer "certain outcome" courses, especially if they were born after, say, 1975 and grew up on them, especially playing competitions. But not the author of this post.

The Cincinnati Met Championship is going to  its final match tomorrow at Losantiville CC. There is not a "quirkier" course in the Queen City. Many competitors find it tricky or contrived. I say it is great. I love it. And more than one player has told me this week that their formerly negative attitude toword it has changed considerably this week. None of them are college kids, though.

[Doug Siebert]

Swinging fast is one element -- but delivering that speed on the ball squarely time after time is quite another.

Twenty some years ago swinging the persimmon face clubs with heavy spin balls was a great challenge. The clubs today allow for more freedom but those who bomb the ball get no advantage if they can't consistently tie two shots together.

Matt,

True, those who bomb the ball get no advantage if they can't consistently tie two shots together, but short hitters who can't consistently tie two shots together are even worse off.  If you are capable of hitting it 300 yards, even if you don't actually do so every time or don't necessarily hit it straight, you are still way better off than another guy with the same odds of hitting it square or straight who only drives it 200.

I mean, you could equally claim that hitting a driver 350 down the middle every single time is not useful if you shank half your wedges or can't make a putt longer than 18", but that guy is still going to be better off than most golfers simply by virtue of playing his second from a better position than most.

The driver has gone from being the most difficult club in the bag for a typical golfer to master to being the easiest club in the bag to master.  The fact it is 30% longer than a wedge is more than made up for by the fact that the area on the face where you can get good results is several times as large.

[Steve Kline]

Low handicappers probably find it much harder to accept "bad" bounces as they really cannot afford to make too many mistakes. A 5 handicapper that drops a shot early on in a round because of a "bad" bounce is going to feel the pressure a little more as he's used up 20% of his allowed bogies. He can only make 4-5 mistakes in a round. I think low handicappers will also be more critical about course condition and also things such as pin locations.

I have to wonder about those in the 5 handicap range. I used to be one of them, and hope to be again. Any time I hear of a 5 handicapper scoffing at a 6000 yds course, I just say to myself "If you're so bloody long that you need to play 7000 yds courses, then why are you still playing off 5?. You're short game must be a disaster."

I do think that all courses should have at least one of two "stout" par 4s in the 440-460 yds range.

Donal,

I'm a 5 (or maybe a 6, haven't checked lately) and I'll say that any other single digit guys who think like you say there are doing themselves a real disservice.  If par was the best I could do on a hole then sure, one bogey will have used up 20% of my alloted shots.  But I can make birdies and occasionally eagles, which tend to offset my bogies (and would do a much better job of that if I didn't also make doubles and occasionally worse )  Now sometimes I might make only one birdie in a round and once or twice a season I might make five, so I never really know the amount of 'offset' in a given round.  But unless I'm playing a bear of a course or in really nasty conditions I'm probably going to assume I'll make up at least a couple strokes somewhere.  And its funny, but it seems that the days where I make the most birdies I also tend to need them more than other days.  Dunno if that's because I'm playing more aggressively those days or its simple regression to the mean and/or "fear of going low".

I'll admit I sometimes scoff at 6000 yard courses, but that's more of a generalization - I don't like courses where I've got a wedge to the green all the time.  I prefer variety.  For much the same reason you believe a course needs a couple of longer 'stout' par 4s.  That's not to say every 6000 yard course doesn't offer variety, there are plenty that do, especially in the UK where a 40+ mph wind can make an otherwise straightforward 300 yard par 4 a beast...no matter what the wind direction!

I agree 6,000 is pretty darn short but you can make a 6,400 yard course though that has some stout pars. It generally is par 70. It will often have a long par 3 or two. Those courses are generally older and have a great variety of holes. In my travels more modern courses have holes of the same length - par 3s between 160-180 yards, par 4s from 360-420, and par 5s 520-540. When an architect does that you have a very boring course.

[Andy Troeger]

The driver has gone from being the most difficult club in the bag for a typical golfer to master to being the easiest club in the bag to master.  The fact it is 30% longer than a wedge is more than made up for by the fact that the area on the face where you can get good results is several times as large.

Guys keep saying this, and I don't get it. My driver is by far the worst club in my bag, and I see other guys who can't control them to save their lives. I can make solid contact with any club you give me most of the time, but control is another story.  Some of you might be better drivers than in the past, but I'm tempted to go back to something old just to hit it straighter.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

I agree -- the upside in hitting the long driver is clearly present. But Doug you present such a weak argument when comparing the guy who hits it 300 and the other who hits it 200. No doubt the former if he has any game whatsoever is going to be in a better position almost all the time.

But, it's a stretch, at least I believe it is, to assume that driving the ball is easier.

That's why I suggested to Tom and to other architects that I communicate with here and elsewhere -- that crafting holes with a 15 to 30 degree turning point makes the longer hitter have to shape shots -- which with today's equipment is no small feat -- especially working the ball both ways.

Tom D:

Thanks for the update info on WP. Gets little mention here but I was quite impressed with what the course is about and I like the idea that you have seen fit to shape your future designs through an elastic prism. One of the deficiencies I have found with many of the classic design architects (i.e. Raynor and company) is that they just kept on producing the same stock hole over and over again. No doubt some were really well done -- see Fisher's Island and Camargo -- but others simply gave the impressions of "been there / done that" for the player.

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

If you give me a hole with a dogleg I'm just going to hit it over the corner, or if that line makes me nervous for some reason I'll take less club and just hit to the corner.  Unless the teebox is in a chute of trees so I have to take the "proper" starting line what's to stop me from doing this, unless you happen to have some very tall trees conveniently located to guard the corner?  Modern equipment makes this a quite reasonable strategy, and reduces the value of being able to work the ball with the driver as a result.

Sure, it is a bit more risky, if I mishit it I may not make the corner, and drop it in the rough or bunker, etc.  But I'm probably just as likely to do that on a straightaway hole from simply missing the fairway.  A drive to an angled fairway often feels a bit easier to me, as there is a bit more side to side leeway then with a straightaway shot.  So long as I know the carry distance and runthrough distance (i.e., I know the numbers, or I've tried it a few times and feel like I've got a good idea) I'm more confident on this type of shot than I am with a straightaway shot to a narrow fairway because I feel as though I have a lot more margin for error.

If you want to make good players uncomfortable, don't just give them a dogleg, give them a dogleg with a turning point in a place where it doesn't work too well for a driver, or use a bit of a double dogleg which would require working the ball since the "hit it straight over the corner" strategy will have very little margin for error.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

You missed my point -- I am not talking about a 90 degree -- or something akin to that. I am talking about a hole where sliding the tee shot from either direction is needed. The 8th at WF/W -- a slight dog-leg right of 460 yards is a good example. The closing hole at WF/W -- which bends to the left is another. Yes, in both instances cited above, you can layback but the cost for laying back only means even more length and more demand for flawless execution.

Working the ball is what is needed -- simply piling long holes after long holes with more length doesn't do it for the guys who really bust the driver.

Doug. just having the hole turn at 15 to 30 degrees and placing enough demands for those who either opt to layback or those who opt away from the preferred landing area will do the trick. WF/W has a number of such holes and it works quite well.

Sometimes you can get other holes where the terrain is rather unique but yet still causes players to really think. A good example is the 10th at SHinnecock -- players can hit drivers to have a LW or short SW -- but the slightest push is deadsville and going too far left results in a very awkward lie to an elevated target. Laying back is no automatic is you then need more club to a very tough target to land on and stay.

Doug. too much emphasis on this site is tied to greens -- no doubt they are the end area of play -- however, I do believe that driving the ball is where architect's need to do more. Doak did that with Rock Creek in MT -- it is considerably more intense with the superb collectin of par-4 holes he has there than say with other designs I have played of his in the States such as Pac Dunes and Ballyneal. That is not to say the aforementioned courses are not superb but that the element of emphasis at Rock Creek is something I had not seen previously from his handiwork.

Driving the ball -- not just for pure power alone -- but in rewarding those who can place it with the power should be the ones who derive the greatest advantage.

[Garland Bayley]

....
The driver has gone from being the most difficult club in the bag for a typical golfer to master to being the easiest club in the bag to master.  ...

I doubt you have any stats to back that up.

[John Moore II]

....
The driver has gone from being the most difficult club in the bag for a typical golfer to master to being the easiest club in the bag to master.  ...

I doubt you have any stats to back that up.

I don't think he can back it up. I actually used an older driver for a long time because I didn't like the first generation 440+ CC heads. I didn't feel like I could get the face back to square.. They've gotten better to me and I feel like I can square the head again. But I can take out a Titleist 976R 210 CC driver and hit it just as straight and nearly as far. I think drivers are easier to hit than before, but that certainly doesn't make it the easiest club to master, far from it.

[Matt_Ward]

The issue Doug mentions is tied to the fact that compared to the older persimmon clubs -- the larger-sized heads are easier for most people to hit -- doesn't mean to say one hits it perfectly -- but that one can hit it more often than previous models and when hit the likelihood of straighter shots is there -- when combined with the ways golf balls are constructed today.

The issue is really being ablt to work the ball on command when needed -- shaping shots with the driver is another matter indeed.

[Doug Siebert]

Just because its easy to hit doesn't mean everyone is going to hit it square or straight all the time.  Even pros don't.  But a lot of the common misses with the old driver have become quite rare.  How often did people top a small driver, versus how much you see it with today's drivers?  How about hitting it 40 yards and left off the tee after hitting it off the heel?  How about an undercut?  I don't think I've EVER seen anyone hit that shot with a 460cc driver, but it sure happened often enough with a 200cc persimmon.  Can you still slice it or hit a duck hook?  Of course you can, size of head won't correct for having the face at the wrong angle at impact.  But that's not really a problem that's made much worse by the extra 2-3" of length in a driver versus a fairway wood, so if you slice or duck hook a driver, you won't get much relief dropping down to a 3W aside from the extra backspin reducing the directional impact of the sidespin.

I can't produce statistics but anyone who has been playing for 30 years or more should be able to realize this with a few moments thought.  Think back to the days before metal woods, how many people did you see who hit the majority of the their drives with a club other than a driver?  In my experience a clear majority of people (I'd say around 2/3) used a 3W or some other club, rather than a driver.  Keep in mind I was playing with whoever I'd join up with at a public course, so single digit handicaps were a minority and I'd hardly ever play with scratch golfers back then.

Now think of how many people you see who hit the majority of their tee shots with a club other than a driver (tossing out long hitters on short courses who hit less club because they don't need the length of a driver....so no counting Phil Mickelson at Pebble Beach!)  Even guys who can't break 100 can hit a driver now.  Not great, but quite often better than any other club in their bag.

This won't stand up in court, but to me at least its pretty obvious.  I do recall some people like John who said they had trouble squaring the face when the big headed drivers first came out, but I don't know any guys who play more than twice a year who still play with a 200cc driver.

[Ken Moum]

Now think of how many people you see who hit the majority of their tee shots with a club other than a driver

'Tis true.

I was just talking to one of my teammates in an event yesterday about that.  I use a 46" driver with ~15-16 degrees of loft, and he asked how I arrived at my "theory" of promoting more loft for the guys I play with.

I realized that the genesis of it was all the brassies I used to see people hit back in the day.

K

[Tim Pitner]

Purely anecdotal, but I played CommonGround yesterday with a low handicapper and he was quite put off by some of the features--cross bunkers, undulations in greens and fairways--that, in his view, punished or failed to adequately reward well-executed shots.  I'm sure he chalks up the fact that he only beat me by a stroke and lost money to the perceived quirkiness of the course.  Now, I don't think CG is particularly quirky, I played pretty well and he didn't by his standards and I know the course better than he does, but there could be something to his view that some of the features at CG are equalizers.  It's been my experience that most low handicappers hate this. 

P.S. my friend also didn't care for some of the green to tee transition areas, which is odd.  My theory is that he grew up playing 1970s and 1980s-era courses and just hasn't seen much variety (although he has played in Scotland). 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()