A different solution

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

There have been a number of discussions on how to toughen up courses, covering a variety of possible solutions.  I would like to throw another hat into the ring....

I was watching highlights from the Senior Open at Riviera and they showed the difficulty that Irwin, Floyd and others had with the tenth hole.  It caused me to really examine why this short hole is so tough.

It obviously plays upon the pro's risk/reward decision making but that is not why it is so difficult.  It forces the player to hit the ball to a specific yardage, and makes it quite difficult (but not impossible) to get up and down if they don't.

I think that architects need to become more creative with green complexes, and design hole locations and hazards specifically for the pros which require them to hit to a specific yardage with little hope of an easy up and down.  This would especially be helpful on par fives, where the pros would think twice before attempting to hit the green in two with a mid to long iron.  The nice part about this solution is that the hole locations would not require any additional length and they would not be used for the average golfer (more central pin placements would be in use for the every-day play).

It just seems to me that while it might be easier to defend Old Man Par by adding length, technology will eventually compensate for that solution.  Rather than emphasizing length, lets focus on accuracy and creativity.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Geoffrey Walsh,

What do you do on short holes of 300 to 350 yards when the pros drive the green or adjacent bunkers and get up and down?

What do you do to 470 yard par 4's when they hit driver-wedge.

What do you do to 560 yard par 5's when they hit
driver-5-iron ?

It's a real dilema.

And these guys hit it straight.

I think you have to cede that two games exist.  The tour game and the rest of us and that the tour venue requires a unique set up, alien to the rest of us.

[ian andrew (Guest)]

Pinehurst #2 gave the pros fits at the US Open, expanded aprons and raised greens places more premium on accuracy and recovery than the standard tour course. The green that falls directly away from play like 10 at Oakmont also seems to bother the players too.

[TEPaul]

I may not be understanding this proposal (solution) exactly but I'm not sure doing more architecturally to require the pros, for instance, to hit the ball a specific length and with accuracy is the best way to go!

I think we've all noticed that the pros are extremely good at hitting the ball a specific length (and they can be awful accurate too) and if you give them receptive ground conditions with that aerial (length) requirement they are really good.

If you want to make any course play harder for anyone, including the pros, the best and simplest way to do it is to just firm things up--both "through the green" (a lot) and also on the greens (somewhat--so they cannot spin their aerial shots as well) and that's about all you need to do to make things more intense--more difficult in fact.

Just take from the pros the ability to control the ball when it hits the ground and that's about all you need to do to make them really think, which can be difficult for them sometimes  as it's not a condition that many of them, particularly Americans are that familiar with or comfortable with!

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

TEPaul,

I think a combination of the two is probably best, creating alternate pin positions on greens that are firm and more difficult to hold.

[TEPaul]

GeoffreyW:

If I'm understanding your proposal (solution) I would like to see fairways firm enough where the player would have to scrutinize the topography (as an example) to determine where he ball might end up under firm conditions. I believe this is so much more in the vein of "strategic considerations" than the softer, narrow set up which essentially becomes aerial target golf exclusively.

The same with the greens (or even off them) with the aerial game. I would prefer that the architecture is such and the greens are firm enough where the best play might be to play to various internal contours, slopes, whatever and then have the ball filter from there nearer to the pin (as an example). Even better, in my opinion, is architecture that might require a player to land his ball even off the green to allow the topography and the architecture to take it to where he wants it on the green. Playing the aerial game directly at (or near to) the pin would be possible but might require a different and possibly far more skilled shot.

This kind of thing might get close to providing all golfers the best of both worlds (aerial and ground game options) that may even be more varied than once was in the old days!!

[JSlonis]

Firstly, I'm all in favor of watching tour players play tough(setup/condition) courses, but...

How about looking at this from a different perspective?  As Pat Mucci states above..."we should cede that two games exist"...this is a true, simple fact, and should be understood as such.

Do what the tour players shoot week in and week out really have any bearing on the average player?  I have argued this point of view for some time now.  It is my view that the tour players have little bearing on the top amateur's and almost no bearing on the average player.  Outside of Augusta Nat'l, which has become a "tournament" course, the effect of the tour players on the majority of US courses should be very little.  As I have said before, if Tiger, Sergio or Jerry Kelly come to your course and shoot "many, many" under par for 4 days, so what?  The member who shoots 90 every day, will still do so, long after the tour has left town. Since the majority of courses will never host a tour event, I don't see the need for drastic changes at many of the great courses.  

The very small percentage that are the best players in the world should not have as big an impact as they seem to have at this point.

Why do we really care if the tour players shoot 15-20 under par every week?  It shouldn't effect the average player one bit.  I think some folks at GCA get carried away with all the equipment and distance issues. Ask your local PGA professional... for the 15 HDCP golfer, "PRO V1's & Giant Ti Drivers" are not the answer, LESSONS are the answer. Average players are not getting any better because they either don't have the time that is required to improve or are simply unwilling to practice enough and just want to enjoy their game "as is". The tour players are outstanding at what they do, they are far better conditioned, both physically and mentally than tour players of 20-30 years ago.  

Parallel this analogy to the NBA. When Bob Cousey and the Celt's were winning every title, the height of the hoop was 10 feet. In those days they weren't doing windmill dunks and bombing long range jump shots. Today's NBA player is much different, now the guards are 6'7" instead of the centers, but the hoop is still 10 feet.  Just because Michael and Kobe can jump out of the building, and Shaq can dominate as he does(while still heaving bricks from the foul line) does this have any bearing on the neighborhood guys playing at the local gym? NO!! Different game, same concept.

[Richard_Goodale]

shivas

With all due respect, the "golfers" today are a hell of a lot better than they were 10-20-30 years ago.  Better trained, better natural athletes, better and more frequently coached. Regardless of tehcnology.

There have always been (at least) two different games, as Pat Mucci has said and Jamie Slonis has confirmed.   Hopefully we golfers will begin to understand that and accept that rather than clinging to our Walter Mitty dreams that just because we can occasionally hit a high cut 220 yard 3-iron to a tucked pin we are anything but chump change when it comes to playing the entire game of golf vis a vis a true professional.

[Richard_Goodale]

Correctomundo, shivas.  And you should know, if you didn't, that Jamie is very much one of those "better" amateurs.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

What you say and what Pat and Jamie have confirmed is undoubtably true--what you call "Walter Mitty dreams".

Do yourself a favor, though, and don't say that too loud and certainly not in the wrong places or one of these aggressive manufacturers, like a Callaway, might have you assasinated!!

The "Walter Mitty factor" is probably about 3/4 of their market and their income! Or otherwise known as the "Great American Equipment Manufacturer Marketing Bullshit Factor".

The fact is there has probably only been about three minuscule break-throughs in our lifetime like light weight materials, perimeter weightening and the perfected two piece ball. The rest is marketing BS plain and simple--always was and still is.

But if they hear you telling that to all those "Walter Mitty" goflers that they can't buy it--that they might have to earn it, and still they'll never be able to hit one like Tiger or even Corey Pavin-- some of those heavy hitter bigwig Wall Street types my do you some damage--so you better watch your mouth boy!

[JSlonis]

Shivas,

I would agree that you would be longer with your new equipment. There is no question that the Pro V1, is longer than the old Balata. What the difference is now is 10-15 years ago there were balls made that travel the same distance as the Pro V1 does today, but a player couldn't spin them. Now companies have merged the distance of the old "rock's", with the feel and spin of the softer balls.

I think a large portion of your increased distance comes from the clubs, not the ball itself.  Your 1990 7 iron has become your 2001 eight iron. You can't really compare iron to iron anymore, you would have to compare loft to loft.

My main argument all along is that even with the increased distances that are being acheived, the average player is not getting any better.  Yes, scores are lower for tour, and top flight college/am players, but I think there are more factors at work than just technology.  Conditioning of courses, specially greens have improved greatly, when was the last time a tour player complained about "spike marks".  Now they just complain about "bumpy poa" at Pebble Beach. Also, conditioning of the players themselves has had a large impact on the game. Like all sports the top players of our era are bigger, stronger, faster, and better coached.

Technology is an easy target, but it is not the only factor.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

You want to know how I've evolved with this new equipment? Actually, I've sort of devolved!

I never played more than about twice a year and then when I came to Philadephia about 23 years ago I took it up bigtime at about 35. Hit balls constantly, played a lot then started just playing tournaments, tons of them and had a pretty good career around here for a guy who's very short off the tee but not so much with irons--didn't win that much but always did consistently well for quite a long time.

But as for the equipment influencing me it was very strange, as I said on here once. I got Ping Eye 2 irons quite a long time ago and later Callaway's and basically went from practicing everyday to about twice a week, then once a week and now about once every two weeks. I think, in retrospect, I fell into that pattern because it just didn't seem to me that I really needed to practice that much anymore. With the equipment I used to use I had to practice all the time to stay sharp but not with the new equipment.

Gradually I started to lose interest a bit and played in far fewer tournaments in the last few years than I used to although I'm still a pretty low handicapper. I regret that this happened and I've sort of promised myself that I would rededicate myself but so far haven't been able to for some reason. I'm sort of an odd example and not a normal one, I'm sure. For some reason I still think I love golf though!

But whatever happened to me I blame the whole thing on the equipment--it's a bizarre conspiracy, in fact! It's all Karsten and Ely's fault!

[JSlonis]

Shivas,

To answer your previous question about my particular game...I think I am a better player now compared to my college years.  Technology has helped some. When it come to the golf ball of today, I think the increased distance is somewhat of a factor, but if you ask the better/tour players they will also tell you that the ball doesn't move(draw/fade) as much as it used to.

A bigger factor on my improved game is attributed to  maturing, and actually learning how to play or better yet SCORE.  I think a fundamental understanding of golf course architecture and playing conditions has helped as well. I have become a better "manager" of my own game.

[Richard_Goodale]

TomP

Your Doyenhood

I'd blame GCA more than a couple of dead guys.  Get out to the range and start hitting balls again!

Respectfully

Rich

PS--Please Don't!

[JSlonis]

Rich,

For TEPaul, wow...828 posts would tend to take away from practice time. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is winter here in Philly, although a mild one so far.(Knocking on wood)

Here's a quote from Lee Trevino pertaining to TePaul's golf game which is quite good with apparently not alot of practice. Trevino was asked why he didn't hit many balls and practice before a round...his answer..."it doesn't take long to warm up a Cadillac."

[Richard_Goodale]

Jamie

You are so right about TEP.  I'd liken him more to a Roller--"The only thing you can hear is the soft ticking of the clock."

shivas

When we finally get out on the links together, in addition to the strokes I will require, I will also insist that you continue to be completely absorbed in lofts and lies and cavity backs and lead tape and whatever else will take your mind off our game--as long as you are my partner!  If we are opponents--just look straight down the hole and start thinking of all the horrible things that might happen to you over the next 3 1/2 hours!

[JSlonis]

Shivas,

It does make sense, and part of what you stated on irons is true, but look at the irons of many tour players, still many blades or forged cavity backs.

There are a number of manufacturers that have newer models that are getting away from the "lower center of gravity" designs. The newer designs are featuring different characteristics on a progression throughout the set. For example, higher center of gravity in the PW-8 to control trajectory, and lower COG in the longer irons to create a higher launch. The best of both worlds per se.  The problem I see is that the majority of golfers don't hit the ball consistently enough to benefit from such technical features, although, overall perimiter weighting has certainly helped many people.

[JSlonis]

Mashie1,

Well stated.
 
I've been curious about the new Callaway ball, although they aren't available around here yet.

[Bob_Huntley]

Here's an idea for toughening things up a bit. Get out the old Oakmont rakes and lets have some real furrows in grennside bunkers. Increase the height of the grass in the fairways thereby cutting out forty or fifty yards of roll and introducing a flier now and again.