What the Pro Game is Really All About

[Tom_Doak]

"I had a perfect yardage" into 18 -- Shawn Micheel.

I've heard this mentioned 100 times by the on-course announcers, but this time it truly sunk in.

Doesn't matter so much if he's on the right side of the fairway or the left.  Doesn't really matter if he's in the fairway or the "semi" rough.  But the fact that he's 174 instead of 177 gives him confidence to hit a great shot.

Of course, whether he gets 174 or 177 is entirely the luck of the draw.  The only time a player can really control his approach yardage is on a par five where he's laying up in two.  But having a yardage he's comfortable with is CLEARLY more important on 99% of golf holes than the angle of approach is.

This is the principal way the pro game is different from the average player's, and it's a main reason why golf architecture is fast becoming irrelevant to the pro game.

[Andrew_Roberts]

What you just said, doesn't that show the greatness of links golf.  Firm and fast with the wind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I agree with you, once these guys "dial it in", they execute with little concern about anything else...... Except... the wind.

[Don_Mahaffey]

It would seem that architecture is becoming irrelevant to the pro game...as long as courses are set up like Oak Hill. But..if the fairways were wider, the bunkers a lot less maicured, the rough shorter so some players actually thought they could take a wack at the green..and most important, dry down the damn greens and roll the piss out of 'em.  Then, architecture would matter, but I've never in my life seen so many pitch out pars. Lets have a go at a rock hard green with just enough rough to create a flyer and now we'll have some fun!

[TEPaul]

Don Mahaffey said:

"and most important, dry down the damn greens and roll the piss out of 'em.  Then, architecture would matter, but I've never in my life seen so many pitch out pars. Lets have a go at a rock hard green with just enough rough to create a flyer and now we'll have some fun!"

I think this statement is the absolute key to dial down the reliability of tour pros being able to "dial into their ideal yardage".

With the whole concept of the "ideal maintenance meld" which involves a number of factors, the ABSOLUTE KEY FACTOR to such as tour pros is to get the green surfaces to that IDEAL firmness (NOT putting stimp speed) when the RELIABILITY of hitting approach irons exact yardages becomes iffy!

That ideal firmness is quite determinable by the characteristics of pitch marks, in my opinon. A very slight "dent" seems to be ideal (certainly not when a real dirt pitch mark is created).

When that ideal firmness is created on the greens the entire spectrum of positioning, really crisp spinnng shots, and all the architectural features protecting certain pins and such is brought back into the equation.

But when a golf course is set up with highly receptive green surfaces when touring pros can control the yardage of most any iron, particularly from fairways, then touring pros are not concerned about the overall characteristics of strategic architecture as they can overcome most anything with their high accurate and yardage exact aerial game!

Don Mahaffey's paragraph is exactly right--the single factor of firm green surfaces brings back the entire spectrum of architecure, even for touring pros. That's the elemental factor of the "ideal maintenance meld" for most architecture, particularly architecture that possesses the ground game option and strategy!

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

Thats as worked up as you ever get, to my knowledge. The thing is, you are exactly right as it pertains to play, not just aesthetics, as I addressed on the Oak Hill thread. Your viewpoint is more on track with we'd all like to see...player, super and GCA conisseur alike!

Good post,

Joe

[George Pazin]

It would seem that architecture is becoming irrelevant to the pro game...as long as courses are set up like Oak Hill. But..if the fairways were wider, the bunkers a lot less maicured, the rough shorter so some players actually thought they could take a wack at the green..and most important, dry down the damn greens and roll the piss out of 'em.  Then, architecture would matter, but I've never in my life seen so many pitch out pars. Lets have a go at a rock hard green with just enough rough to create a flyer and now we'll have some fun!

Don -

Since you've got the years of experience, can you give us some idea of how "dialable" this particular aspect is? Is the green keeper simply at the mercy of Mother Nature? Do the 12+ speeds or the customized grass the big boys play on require so much water that you almost can't get them firm enough?

[Peter Galea]

I agree. Mow the grass and firm the whole thing up. I like to see the ball bounce and roll. Let them go low. Closest one to zero wins.

[TEPaul]

"Is the green keeper simply at the mercy of Mother Nature?"

GeorgeP;

Of course he is--but the idea is to provide firm conditions the rest of the time when it hasn't rained. Probably the funniest thing I ever saw on here was from some guy who wanted to know why it wasn't firm and fast following a pretty heavy rain.

And the really necessary ingredient of firm green surfaces should never be confused with putting speed (stimpmeter readings).

[Don_Mahaffey]

George,
First let me say this. I believe the supt. at Oak Hill gave the PGA eactly what they asked for, so he should be commended. The course did look good, if you like that look.

Rarely will a week of dry weather permantly harm healthy turf. Thus, turning off the water on the greens the Sunday prior, and possibly doing a little hand watering would in most cases create firm greens. Little extra rolling and you can get them as hard as you want, but they would need some TLC following the event. You could even go so far as using a moisture sensor to assure even dryness (overkill). If you have internal drainage, machines like subair can be hooked up to drain lines and moisture sucked out of the greens. Bottom line, yes with the right resources, they would be dialable. Now, if it rains, I guess 20 under wins.

[Tom_Doak]

Don,

The last major in America played under those conditions -- the PGA at Cherry Hills in 1985.

The problem is that widening the fairways will only add strategy if the greens ARE rock hard.  If they're not, it won't matter what part of the fairway they're playing from, and it will just let the guys who hit loose drives stay in the game more.  That's what the PGA is afraid of.

[Rick Shefchik]

I played in a tournament last week at a great Donald Ross course that should have been hard and lightning fast due to lack of rainfall, but it was watered constantly prior to and during the tournament, leaving the course lush, green and, to my mind, too soft. It looked great and many players were raving about the excellent conditions, but to me they had the wrong concept in mind. I was looking forward to bouncing shots onto the greens, but there was no reason to; the greens were holding, and the aprons were too soft.

Soft courses aren't just a problem on the pro tour; the idea has seeped down to all courses that can afford to use a lot of water. Why not fire at the flags, regardless of where the bunkers are, or what's behind the green?

[John_Conley]

Tom Doak:

Great comment.

I've talked to a PGA Tour player that holds a course record at a very well respected course (Tour Stop, round 3 a few years ago) and he said it will never be broken.  "All day long I had the perfect number.  That NEVER happens.  I was never between clubs and could hit it close without much thought."

"Yeah, I can relate," I replied.  (Just kidding.)

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I agree 100% if conditions are soft.  Design features with these guys are all but wasted if the ball stops where it lands.  
Mark

[James Edwards]

Why are we so afraid of seeing the birdie in the professional game? - whats wrong with -10 totals? TOC was hammered one year and yet it still holds the tag of being a great strategic test... which it is.. golfers are getting better dont you think, they are just getting better...thats why world records are being broken in every sport, not just golf.

[Andy Hodson]

What is the big problem with pros hitting great shots? My goodness, the man was on the verge of his first Tour victory, a major no less, and hit a shot for the ages.

As for perfect yardage: the 7 iron I saw him hit landed several yards short of the hole and rolled up to inches away. That, to me, indicates a firm green. When is the last time, weather not permitting, a PGA Tour event, much less a major, was not set up with firm greens in mind?

At times, it seems to me, this site is so darned concerned with the golf course "winning" against the touring pro that if one player hits a great shot, it must be because the "maintenance meld" wasn't right, or the Tournament Committee doesn't get it, or the governing bodies are all asleep as golf burns, or the freakin course was too green ( "Let's see 'em try that shot when this course gets black!"). Last I checked, Micheel was only 4 under par, and three others joined him under par. This from the best players in the world.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Andy,
I don't think anyone said the course was easy or that Micheel didn't deserve to win. The issue is all the majors are headed toward the same sort of set up where every shot is dictated to the player. Options simply do not exist. I miss the Masters of old where someone always made a charge with aggressive play. How could anyone possibly play aggressively at Oak Hill? Every tee shot was dictated by the narrow fairways and 8 inch ( 8 freaking inches) rough. Yes the winner hit a shot out of the rough on 16 on Sunday, but where were the efforts at curving the ball around a tree or trying to bump one up on the green? It was boring golf because there was only one way to play the course. Is every golfer in the world supposed to play every hole identically in order to score well? That's certainly where the governing bodies of golf are headed with their championships.

[Tom_Doak]

Andy, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Micheel didn't deserve to win.  From what I saw of the last two days, he hit the ball better than anyone else, putted better than anyone else, and managed his game reasonably well when he didn't hit a great shot.

(I also found out today that a friend of mine has known him for years, and says it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.)

Nor, James, does it bother me a bit if guys shoot ten under par.  In fact, I'd rather see them shoot ten under than see guys shoot eight over because of eight inch rough.

In fact, the most gratifying thing this weekend was to watch the veteran players gripe about the course and expect the naive guys to come back to even par, instead of going out and trying to shoot the best score they could ... and then watching the naive guys go out and stick it to them.

But ... my thread was about golf architecture.  What is an architect supposed to take away from that last hole on Sunday?  Micheel wasn't on the best side of the fairway, from what I could tell ... the golf course was set up tough, and the greens were drying out ... but that didn't matter very much because he had the perfect yardage.

I'll go back to Shivas' options:

1)  To give Micheel 253 yards in, the 18th hole would have had to be a 548 yard par 4.  I guess if Oak Hill wanted to blow up their West course, they might have room for that.

2)  Rock hard greens ... and if they make them harder they're going to have to back off on the rough so there is some chance of recovery, because you aren't going to hold many greens.

3)  I didn't follow all of Shivas' contouring scheme, but if he makes it difficult for Shawn Micheel to hold the green with a seven-iron, I don't think many of the members are going to have fun with it; so

4)  Maybe the lesson is that architects should just ignore what the Tour pros can do, and worry about how 5-handicaps and 25-handicaps will enjoy the course.

[paul cowley]

......tom ,agreed , option '4' is the only viable , practical option.........

[Tom_Doak]

Paul,

Is that what your company founder thinks too?

[Doug Siebert]

One thing that strikes me when watching the tournaments today versus the old Shell's stuff and black & white Masters footage is how much shorter the fairways are mowed these days.  Is there any reason for that?  I'm not saying it should be cut like semi-rough, but there's no reason to cut it as short as they do.  It allows the pros to hit the ball further and control the contact of the ball extremely precisely.  When every lie is absolutely perfect and you get a club or two closer to the green thanks to the extra roll of course the game will be easier, especially for the best in the game.

I'd rather see that than go any further to the extreme in terms of narrowness of fairways and length of rough.  The next step would have to be making the gallery ropes OB on every hole....hmmm, actually that might be kind of nice, it sucks how those guys get away with wild shots thanks to bouncing off fans while we get a giant hop off a cartpath leaving an impossible 50 yard pitch from behind the green!

[Steve_L.]

Tom,

From what I could see on TV - the areas around the greens at Oak Hill were fairly severly undulating.  Much of the effect of these undulations were minimized by the long rough - making the flop shot out of the greenside rough a no-brainer play for most.

If the entire Oak Hill course were mowed down tight for the tournament, wouldn't balls that miss greens kick and bounce into more perilous places than they ended up last week?  And with a tightly mowed firm course, wouldn't the recoveries be from further from the hole because the rough wouldn't hold anything up?  What do you think the effect would be on the scoring - or does it matter?

For the Women's Open, 18 was a fascinating hole because of the danger presented by the closely mowed hollow left of the green.  Couldn't Oak Hill have employed this maintenance method and wouldn't it have been a more interesting tournament where creative shotmaking was rewarded?

[TEPaul]

I think that remark, "I had the perfect yardage" is more of a tour cliche than anything else. Sure those pros are more robotic than the rest of us but a remark like that probably doesn't mean much more than the shot just felt sort of comfortable to him before he hit it--even given the circumstances. Even all of us have had situations like that in our golfing lives, I'm sure.

But guys, Shaun Micheel hit one of the finest approach shots to the 72nd hole in PGA Championship history--just appreciate it. Did he set up to that shot and say, "I feel I'm going to hit this 2 inches from the hole"? Of course not, he only said he felt he had the club to hit a good shot to that green.

We all saw one of the most memorable closing approach shots of all--that's golf--and that's what makes it exciting and unpredicatable. Now we're all discussing ways, architectural or otherwise to make it not happen again!?

Why?

[paul cowley]

....tom ,most definately [his philosophy has always been playability for the masses, and he would be the first to acknowledge that tour pros play a rarified game that makes design across the board a challenge]

.....a challenge we are currenty undertaking at our renovation of forrest oaks cc, which will host this falls GGO tour event.

.....a members course for 51 weeks of the year ,first ,a tour players course for a week ,second.................

......heck, we even bat around leaving courses alone and just changing 'par' to accomodate the new skill levels....par 68 or 69,who cares?, thats closer to what they play to anyway ,[especially if par represents an ideal score]

 and its definately something to consider for new projects....

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I have said this before but I will say it again.  

1) If you set up a golf course with no variation around the greens, the tournament is boring to watch.  Watching a tour player Hacking it out of the hay is simply not what I want to do with my Sunday afternoon. Give me some variaton.

2) Tom is right, forget the tour players and build most courses for 5's and 25's.  The time may have come for a series of golf 'arenas' for the majors.  NASCAR figured out that they needed purpose built stadiums for their tour, why shouldn't golf do the same.  Sawgrass and Augusta are perfect examples.  Either that or it is time to give the pros a ball that will not travel through several time zones.