[Jud_T]

I don't mind huge greens and three-putting.  But I wouldn't like having to make a big shoulder turn or break my wrists to get a putt there on every hole.  And I don't mind chipping from on the green...like at most once a round (but the super should NEVER want me doing it).  I generally want to putt on the putting green.  If I miss the green I LOVE putting with my 3-wood.  But I would never imagine having to putt from the green with my 3-wood.  Do I have to change my view?  Does OM have greens where the "better" play from the green is a 3-wood? 

Matt,

Good question.  I primarily chip from off the green on tight fescue with my rescue club.  Given that at Old Mac it's virtually impossible to distinguish where the fairway ends and the green starts, I'd say use whatever you're comfortable with.  The "better" play is whatever gets the ball closer to the hole more consistently...

[George Pazin]

The truth is that missing by 60 feet is a bad shot for a good player -- even if he's still on the green.  Shouldn't that result in a bogey more than once in a blue moon?

Why not just make the greens smaller, then?

Truth is, from 60' I'd rather use a 7-iron than a putter regardless of whether I'm on the green or not! There's not much chance of finding a 60' putt anywhere on my course, though...

So you don't enjoy a different challenge? Should Tom change all of his courses to conform to others' ideas?

[JMEvensky]

George P.,that's the $64,000 question. I'd be curious to know what percentage of golfers want a different challenge.I think I'd bet that most would prefer the devil they know.

And that's a shame.

[Matt MacIver]

I love different challanges and get bored easily from repetitive shots - even though I stink.  I love using my 3-wood off the green where possible; it's usually my best option to get the ball close (less chance of flipping, chunking, skulling, etc). 

However, even for my enlightened mind I think I might think that using a 3-wood to putt, from on the green, on a majority of holes, would be too gimmicky a course for me.  Note I've never played OM so I'm not saying that's the case, but is it? 

Or do I need to free my mind?  Note I also think I should be able to 2-putt most greens no matter how large they are.  I guess I'm saying that I should be able to 2-putt them with a putter; maybe I'm thinking too conventionally there too. 

[George Pazin]

Matt, where did you get the idea that the greens are too big to 2 putt with a putter? Or that it's necessary to use a 3 wood to putt frequently?

[Matt MacIver]

George -

I got the notion from a few of the comments above so I thought I would probe a bit...I guess someone mentioned slowish greens so it got me thinking about the concept in general and not specifically to OM, since I've never played it.  But on paper and in pictures it looks to be my favorite at the resort, and I've played the other three. 

[Steve Lang]

  In mid may 2010 I used my 7 wood from just off the greens  and for some long range 60 footers at OM, BT, and PD with great success..  saw playing partners keep trying to spin wedges and flop to the holes with great frustration

.. gotta love the roll

[Matt MacIver]

The great equalizer, I love it.  Jack or somebody said to get the ball rolling as soon as possible.  To that end and to get back on- thread, I suppose getting-the-ball-rolling and big-greens go hand-in-hand.  A steady diet of OM would probably help my GIR but probably wouldn't help my index.  But I would definitely be having more fun. 

[Lloyd_Cole]

I love to play links golf, but I'm not very good at it. I love to putt from 60 feet, or more, but I'm not very good at it, especially if there are more than two breaks... I think that Luke Donald, even, if he's playing to score rather than to have fun, takes out a lob wedge from 60 feet and takes out two of the breaks. That's what would do if I was playing to win, if I didn't have to putt. All the more reason to play for fun once in a while...

[John Kirk]

If this hasn't been said yet, greenside shots from 10-30 yards off the giant Old Macdonald greens often look like putts.  The turf is really tight; the transition from fairway to green height grass is as seamless as any American course I've seen.  Given my abilities, I would expect to have at 2-4 shots each round where putter is used from over 90 feet.  Lofted wedge is a risky play.

This course encourages putter more than any other course I've played.  Big ass long putts; its a gas.

[Sean_A]

Isn't the fact that pros relying more on the putter while playing TOC one of the main reasons The Open is so entertaining every five years?  It doesn't matter how low they go (or how many go low), its the idea of these guys playing the shots I and millions of other golfers play that makes a TOC Open so much fun to watch.  It strikes me that it is easy for a VERY good approach by a pro to end up 45 feet away once he finds himself out of postion off the tee.  I imagine (hope anyway) that Old Mac is somewhat like TOC in this regard. 



Ciao   

[Michael George]

It is most unfortunate that tour players have so much influence on the design and playability of golf courses.  Most know very little about golf course architecture or design.  Plus, they have an inherent bias toward certain styles of golf courses.

There is a significant difference between playing a golf course "to make a living" and playing a golf course "as a recreation".  If it was up to most tour professionals, most golf courses would be designed by RTJ.  Straight holes with deep bunkers where good shots are always rewarded and bad shots are irrevocably lost.  The player that hit the ball long and straight and putted well would win.  Imagination would not factor in the least.  This would result in the most boring kind of recreational golf imaginable.

Tom - please do not let tour professionals influence your golf course designs.  Old Mac and Pac Dunes are wonderful places and I don't care if the tour professionals don't find them fair.  If they have problems putting from 100 feet, then their game is not as good as it should be.  The best players in the world should be able to hit every shot that a golf course architect can imagine (as Donald Ross said - there is no unfair bunker).  In my opinion, the more shots that you can make a player hit, the better test a golf course is.     

For instance, after playing Old Mac, I would love to go back and play it solely with a putter.  Really, the only shot that you cannot hit with a putter is the drive on 3.  I actually thought I could have shot under 100 with a putter on that course.

Bottom line - let the tour pros play "our" courses, not the amateur play "their" courses.   

[Jud_T]

Tom - please do not let tour professionals influence your golf course designs. 

Michael,

I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about this...

[Pete Lavallee]

Just to steer this thread back on track, the topic is "strokes gained". The concept is don't practice 3 footers, because everybody makes 3 foooters and you won't gain an advantage on the field by becoming more proficient in this area. Now, practicing 8 footers can really pay off because the Tour average is 50%. So if you can make 60% of your 8 footers you will gain strokes on the field. Also eliminating 3 putts would pay off too; bring your 3 putt average below 24% and you gain strokes. It's a very interesting concept and certainly at a course like Old Mac it can pay off in spades if applied properly, just because your putter is so important there.

[Michael George]

Jud:

Not worried.  Just sick of the tour players thinking they know more about golf solely because they are good players. 

[Kyle Harris]

This thread interests me because an underlying theme to many of my recent thoughts is golf statistics.

I liken the comparison to the assumption made by Sabermetricians in baseball:

It is not the job of Albert Pujols to hit singles, doubles, triples or even homeruns. It is the job of Albert Pujols to generate runs for his team without spending outs.

Sabermetrics are based on the idea that a team spends outs to generate runs. To wit: the out is the currency of the game.

In golf, a stroke is the currency of the game and strokes are spent to overcome distance.

One could then extrapolate that it's not the job of Luke Donald to hit fairways, or greens or even to make putts, but instead to spend strokes to overcome distance in the most efficient manner. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if the player hits the green or not, what matters is that the player finds the areas around the green from which a minimum of subsequent strokes need be played.

[Jud_T]

Jud:

Not worried.  Just sick of the...players thinking they know more about golf solely because they are good players. 

Michael,

You may be slumming on the wrong blog then...   

[Jud_T]

This thread interests me because an underlying theme to many of my recent thoughts is golf statistics.

I liken the comparison to the assumption made by Sabermetricians in baseball:

It is not the job of Albert Pujols to hit singles, doubles, triples or even homeruns. It is the job of Albert Pujols to generate runs for his team without spending outs.

Sabermetrics are based on the idea that a team spends outs to generate runs. To wit: the out is the currency of the game.

In golf, a stroke is the currency of the game and strokes are spent to overcome distance.

One could then extrapolate that it's not the job of Luke Donald to hit fairways, or greens or even to make putts, but instead to spend strokes to overcome distance in the most efficient manner. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if the player hits the green or not, what matters is that the player finds the areas around the green from which a minimum of subsequent strokes need be played.

Kyle,

Very interesting.  What are the implications for golf stats?  Essentially keeping your ball in play, scrambling, sand saves and putting?  Is there some new stats you can think of that might be more appropriate?  How about percentage of green misses on proper side (i.e. the non-short side stat).  side to side and front to back? Are these stats equally robust at TOC and Sawgrass?  Can't wait to take my son to see Moneyball next week.  

[JC Urbina]

.

   

[Andy Troeger]

Isn't the fact that pros relying more on the putter while playing TOC one of the main reasons The Open is so entertaining every five years?  It doesn't matter how low they go (or how many go low), its the idea of these guys playing the shots I and millions of other golfers play that makes a TOC Open so much fun to watch.  It strikes me that it is easy for a VERY good approach by a pro to end up 45 feet away once he finds himself out of postion off the tee.  I imagine (hope anyway) that Old Mac is somewhat like TOC in this regard. 

Ciao   

We got into this (general) discussion a bit on an Old Mac thread about a month ago, but I do think there is a definite comparison between how Old Mac plays and TOC. The difference for me is that I'm not especially entertained by watching TOC opens to see if guys can two-putt from long distances. In fact I find it rather boring--I turned off the most recent one after it became clear that Casey wasn't going to make a run. As John Kirk mentioned before, Old Mac encourages the putter more than any course I've seen (having not seen TOC in person)--but I am not as fond of that concept as some.

[Kyle Harris]

This thread interests me because an underlying theme to many of my recent thoughts is golf statistics.

I liken the comparison to the assumption made by Sabermetricians in baseball:

It is not the job of Albert Pujols to hit singles, doubles, triples or even homeruns. It is the job of Albert Pujols to generate runs for his team without spending outs.

Sabermetrics are based on the idea that a team spends outs to generate runs. To wit: the out is the currency of the game.

In golf, a stroke is the currency of the game and strokes are spent to overcome distance.

One could then extrapolate that it's not the job of Luke Donald to hit fairways, or greens or even to make putts, but instead to spend strokes to overcome distance in the most efficient manner. Therefore, it really doesn't matter if the player hits the green or not, what matters is that the player finds the areas around the green from which a minimum of subsequent strokes need be played.

Kyle,

Very interesting.  What are the implications for golf stats?  Essentially keeping your ball in play, scrambling, sand saves and putting?  Is there some new stats you can think of that might be more appropriate?  How about percentage of green misses on proper side (i.e. the non-short side stat).  side to side and front to back? Are these stats equally robust at TOC and Sawgrass?  Can't wait to take my son to see Moneyball next week.  

Jud:

How about shot efficiency?

Distance the ball traveled/raw hole distance (direct line from tee to hole)

divided by:

Distance the ball traveled/centerline hole distance (card yardage of the hole)

Tells us how effectively the player managed the distance of the course through strokes.

Average distance per shot:

Score/total distance ball traveled

This last stat would be skewed a bit for players leaving the ball short of the hole on approaches. Furthermore, the more putts one takes, the lower the average would be since each instance of a putt adds a substantially smaller number to the average.

Either way, the idea is to judge and predict how effective a player can play a shot. Since each shot is played in order to substantially increase the odds of holing the next shot or for holing that next shot, (the transition of attitude from the former to the latter is a KEY to golf architecture, IMO) there is little to no value in actually determining where the ball ends up except in the context of how the ball is maneuvered to decrese the distance needed to be overcome.  

[Steve Lang]

If this hasn't been said yet, greenside shots from 10-30 yards off the giant Old Macdonald greens often look like putts.  The turf is really tight; the transition from fairway to green height grass is as seamless as any American course I've seen.  Given my abilities, I would expect to have at 2-4 shots each round where putter is used from over 90 feet.  Lofted wedge is a risky play.

This course encourages putter more than any other course I've played.  Big ass long putts; its a gas.

BEEN TO BALLYNEAL?

[George Pazin]

Isn't the fact that pros relying more on the putter while playing TOC one of the main reasons The Open is so entertaining every five years?  It doesn't matter how low they go (or how many go low), its the idea of these guys playing the shots I and millions of other golfers play that makes a TOC Open so much fun to watch.  It strikes me that it is easy for a VERY good approach by a pro to end up 45 feet away once he finds himself out of postion off the tee.  I imagine (hope anyway) that Old Mac is somewhat like TOC in this regard. 

Ciao   

We got into this (general) discussion a bit on an Old Mac thread about a month ago, but I do think there is a definite comparison between how Old Mac plays and TOC. The difference for me is that I'm not especially entertained by watching TOC opens to see if guys can two-putt from long distances. In fact I find it rather boring--I turned off the most recent one after it became clear that Casey wasn't going to make a run. As John Kirk mentioned before, Old Mac encourages the putter more than any course I've seen (having not seen TOC in person)--but I am not as fond of that concept as some.

Maybe other courses emphasize the wrong things.

[John Kirk]

If this hasn't been said yet, greenside shots from 10-30 yards off the giant Old Macdonald greens often look like putts.  The turf is really tight; the transition from fairway to green height grass is as seamless as any American course I've seen.  Given my abilities, I would expect to have at 2-4 shots each round where putter is used from over 90 feet.  Lofted wedge is a risky play.

This course encourages putter more than any other course I've played.  Big ass long putts; its a gas.

BEEN TO BALLYNEAL?

Why yes, in fact I have.

[Steve Lang]

If this hasn't been said yet, greenside shots from 10-30 yards off the giant Old Macdonald greens often look like putts.  The turf is really tight; the transition from fairway to green height grass is as seamless as any American course I've seen.  Given my abilities, I would expect to have at 2-4 shots each round where putter is used from over 90 feet.  Lofted wedge is a risky play.

This course encourages putter more than any other course I've played.  Big ass long putts; its a gas.

BEEN TO BALLYNEAL?

and from your membership play at BN you think OM really presents more long putts and is more seemless?  more or less opportunity for the wind blowing balls off the greens?

just wondering..

Why yes, in fact I have.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()