[Tom ORourke]

I do not mind the occasional forced layup if the distance on the other side is doable. But, rather than a forced layup, I like holes where you can hit a 3 or 5 wood to play safe, or hit driver if you can work a draw or fade. Holes with mild doglegs that challenge you to decide how to play it, not dictate how. You can hit driver all you want, but blowing it through the fairway is the possible result.

[Jason Thurman]

I was going through my 20 favorite courses. Between them, there are about 5 holes (excluding par 3s) where hitting driver isn't a realistic option for me. Among my 20 least favorite courses, they average between 2 and 3 such holes apiece.

In my experience, the courses with the most interesting tee shots are the ones where the strategy isn't a question of whether to take driver or lay up, but instead a question of how boldly to play with the driver. Questions like "Do you try to carry the bunker or play around it?" are more interesting to me than "Do you try to hit driver into that narrow spot, or lay up to the fat spot with a hybrid?"

Of course, to present meaningful options for bold and conservative play with a driver, a course needs a modicum of width and angles that matter. After all, there are plenty of wide open courses where you can hit driver all day without much excitement. It's a bit of a chicken-or-the-egg question. Are courses good because they present the option to hit drivers? Or is the option to hit drivers a by-product of courses that are good because they have meaningful width?

[Brent Hutto]

I am a very short hitter. While I must allow for the possibility of the odd downwind driver shot going 230 yards in reality I plan for about 185-190 of carry and maybe 200-210 total. Even with "playing it forward" most courses require me to go ahead and hit driver on just about every Par 4 or Par 5 hole unless I'm laying up shorter just to prove a point. 

So here's the thing. I really like courses that have one hole, somewhere, that hitting less than driver is a meaningful option. Not a chicken-out narrow or trouble-choked tee shot where I hit an iron just to get it in play. But an option-option where I can hit driver at some risk or play a different club while still realistically having a reasonable but longer shot into the green.

Not all that many courses have such a true strategic option hole for the 200-yard hitter, surprisingly. And when even my driver off the tee leaves me a bunch of 4-iron or fairway wood approach shots the "option" of laying back another 20-30 yards is just silly (unless of course there's some interesting slope or run-up feature I can use to work the ball to the green from there).

[Thomas Dai]

Once upon a time, back in the days of wooden heads and steel shafts, the Driver was probably the hardest club in the bag to hit, especially first shot of the day, so fairway woods were a common choice off the tee and many folk didn't even carry a Driver. Now, with that 460cc titanium head, the Driver from the tee may even be the easiest club in the bag to hit, even first shot of the day when you're short of time and have just jumped out of the car and raced to the 1st tee.

And the modern generation ball fly's so straight in comparison to yee olde balata etc.

Modern equipment is easier to use from the rough too so even if your Driver from the tee fails to hit the short grass there's a good chance of still making a decent score on the hole. Maybe not the case from the gunch or the jungle or the trees (or the water!) though.

atb

[Sean_A]

I don't have a problem with one or two true forced lay-up drives on a course.  What I don't like is when the second is now longer than the drive...it favours big hitters too much when presumably the forced layup is meant to throttle the long ball.  I would also prefer if going too far in the lay-up doesn't result in death...just normal rough conditions with maybe a bunker or two which is a roll of the dice so far as recovery goes.   

I would say that if a lay-up is on the cards that it is better if a slim open option is offered...ala 10 at St Enodoc.  Success at this shot has the same feeling as a good recovery after taking on a big risk...its good for the golfing soul. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

What I don't like is when the second is now longer than the drive...it favours big hitters too much when presumably the forced layup is meant to throttle the long ball.

That's the part I was trying to get at in my reply. It's cool when the choice is between, let's say, playing 4-iron/5-iron vs. Driver/9-iron but it seems that often (for my game) choices when offered as between 4-iron/3-wood+ versus Driver/5-iron. Which makes less than driver off the tee not so much "strategy" as "playing the hole as a Par 5".

[Mark_Fine]

As much as I don't care for heavy handed architecture, almost regardless of what the architect presents in terms of challenge, the better the golfer, the more holes that will "likely" dictate something less than a driver off the tee.  That is a fact.

[Brent Hutto]

Well Mark, part of that the finding from the Stroke Gained research showing that just about the steepest curve of ability vs. handicap has to do with hitting long approach shots.

Take the case of a player who can hit a 5-iron from 200 yards and have a 60/40 chance of putting it on a typical green from that distance, playing a 400-yard hole. If there's any meaningful risk at all to hitting driver and trying to get within wedge range then the smart play is just to 5-iron/5-iron it and at worst have a chip and a putt for par.

Contrast that to a 10-handicapper whose 200-yard shot is a fairway wood with a fairly low chance of hitting the green. If he can drive the ball to the 150-yard marker by taking on a moderately severe risk then it's just about equally obvious that he should hit driver.

I think that's the main mechanism by which driver is "taken out of the hands" of better players. It's not as often that their long, long driver shots  bring more trouble into play as that the cost of NOT hitting driver becomes a tiny fraction of a stroke mostly by reducing birdie chances slightly.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm not a fan of holes that leave you absolutely no choice.  A hole with water starting at 250 that has a little 10 yard wide ribbon of fairway with water on one side and thick rough on the other may mean you're stupid to hit driver, but it is still an option.  A hole with a lake or deep ravine at 250 that's 100 yards to clear and no way around it is another matter entirely.  I'm OK with such a hole if the hole is not too much more than 400 yards long (for a par 4)  If you have a hole like that which was say 440, given that most would lay up well short like 220, you're basically forcing a 220 yard second shot.  That's bad routing.  Not to mention unfair to women and seniors who will probably have to layup on their second shot, hit a 100 yard carry on their third, and then put their fourth on the green!  Granted a 440 yard hole for them would be a par 5, but still...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()