[cary lichtenstein]

In watching the majors this year, I started to reflect on the announcers opining about tee shot placement in the fairways. as a pretty good golfer, 4 handicap, i reflected on y own proficiency or lack thereof.  I belonged to 3 courses over 50+ years and there was one one hole, out of 54, that i ever even tried to hit a particular side of a fairway.


All I ever tried to do, was be in the fairway. If you look at the pros, and their percentage of fairways hit, I suspect they are no different. Jordan Speis hit only 46%., so if that number is soo low, I think they are no different than me, just trying to hit any part of every fairway.


Granted some courses have more generous fairways, but is it any different??? I remember playing Harbour Town, with perhaps the narrowest fairways in golf. so when we start talking about great golf architecture, let's take pacific dunes as an example...I loved it, played it twice, 71 and 73, so obviously the fairways must have been very forgiving compared with Oakmont, were I shot 87 on my only outing.


So when I rank courses for myself, Pacific Dunes was great and I would like to play it everyday for the rest of my life and Oakmont was a monster and once was way more than enuf for me.


I'm curious how others feel

[Sean_A]

Its more than about fairway placement.  The best place to miss is tied in with the concept.  Even at my club, which has narrow fairways, I will aim for sides of fairways in the hope of avoiding the bad miss.  However, even on the narrow fairways, I would say the approach angle makes a difference on 10/14 holes. 


Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

The holy grail for an architect would be a hole where being in the rough, on the correct side of the fairway, gives you at least as good an approach than being in the fairway, on the wrong side.


In that case, there are four options, [in fairway or not, right side or wrong], and there is some gradual penalty for missing the best case option.  Whereas, if the rough is more penal than the correct side, the shot values just encourage everyone to aim for the middle of the fairway, and not pick a side.


A lot of my designs are partly about this in the fairway, but especially so around the greens.  There's nearly always a good place to miss the green, and a very bad place to miss it, where even the best players will have a tough time getting up and down.  [Unfortunately, that's why they sometimes call my greens "unfair".]

[Joe Zucker]

Cary, I have been struck my this thought as well.  It's hard to comment on the pros, since they play a much different game than I do.  For me, I can't imagine trying to hit a certain side of the fairway even though I am a good player.  But like Sean says, it's all about the miss.  The rough on most courses I play isn't penal enough for me to prefer the "wrong" side of the fairway over the better angle.  If I am even more honest, my aim off the tee is usually to have my miss on a side that avoids trouble rather than the side that gives me a better angle of approach.


Since most golfers miss most their tee shots in one direction, it's hard to imagine they could every carry out a strategy that is predicated on playing for optimal approach angles.  More likely they will be better served with a strategy that emphasizes "placing tee shots" away from bad hazards.  A bad miss off the tee can be a 1-2 stroke penalty for the average player, but having a bad angle into a green may only be a 0.5-1 stroke penalty.


A similar question I've often wondered is when I should take less club off the tee. This has an element of direction involved, but I have never been able to figure out a broad strategy for how much additional distance into a green is worth hitting a fairway.  For me, it has always been hole dependent, which keeps the game interesting. 

[jeffwarne]

In watching the majors this year, I started to reflect on the announcers opining about tee shot placement in the fairways. as a pretty good golfer, 4 handicap, i reflected on y own proficiency or lack thereof.  I belonged to 3 courses over 50+ years and there was one one hole, out of 54, that i ever even tried to hit a particular side of a fairway.


All I ever tried to do, was be in the fairway. If you look at the pros, and their percentage of fairways hit, I suspect they are no different. Jordan Speis hit only 46%., so if that number is so low, I think they are no different than me, just trying to hit any part of every fairway.

Interesting topic.


I mentioned strategy being irrelevant for most golfers on another thread (unless aiming "down the middle" on every hole is a strategy ).
I say this because many/most clubs have such narrow fairways that the goal is as stated above, to merely hit the fairway.


Only with:
1.width (when needed)
2. education
3. and thoughtful slope/tilt combined with reasonably firm greens

can placement strategy be actually relevant enough to warrant most player's attention


Ironically, it's the dreaded trees that create the most strategy on older courses as often a player must pick a side of an otherwise narrow fairway to avoid overhanging limbs.
Overall Tilt and slope rarely influence shots on most modern courses and less so now even on older courses as green slopes are often reduced and greens often soft(thus virtually neutering tilt) due to the quest/need for faster greens.

My point is many people feel greatly offended when the hit a drive "down the middle: and have it not be perfect, and as Tom said feel greens such as Sebonack's are "stupid" when the find themselves with a difficult or nearly impossible recovery in certain areas to certain pins.
 The same people have no problem being hit over the head with a frying pan when their ball disappears forever into a defined hazard such as water [size=78%], with zero chance for creative recovery.[/size]

[Bill_McBride]

In watching the majors this year, I started to reflect on the announcers opining about tee shot placement in the fairways. as a pretty good golfer, 4 handicap, i reflected on y own proficiency or lack thereof.  I belonged to 3 courses over 50+ years and there was one one hole, out of 54, that i ever even tried to hit a particular side of a fairway.


All I ever tried to do, was be in the fairway. If you look at the pros, and their percentage of fairways hit, I suspect they are no different. Jordan Speis hit only 46%., so if that number is soo low, I think they are no different than me, just trying to hit any part of every fairway.


Granted some courses have more generous fairways, but is it any different??? I remember playing Harbour Town, with perhaps the narrowest fairways in golf. so when we start talking about great golf architecture, let's take pacific dunes as an example...I loved it, played it twice, 71 and 73, so obviously the fairways must have been very forgiving compared with Oakmont, were I shot 87 on my only outing.


So when I rank courses for myself, Pacific Dunes was great and I would like to play it everyday for the rest of my life and Oakmont was a monster and once was way more than enuf for me.


I'm curious how others feel

Cary, I am certain that you were aiming at a specific part of the fairway even if you didn't achieve that objective.   Every time you played a hole with front corner bunkers you aimed at the side of the fairway that would give you the best angle at that day's pin.   Maybe this was all subliminal and I'm all wet but.....

[Thomas Dai]

Do folks recall the days when even modest amateurs wouldn't hit a steel shafted Driver on all par-4's and even par-5's? When, without a warm-up, a steel shafted 3-wood or even a 4-5-wood was often the choice from the 1st tee (and even subsequent tees) being easier to hit 'cold' (even 'warm') than a Driver. When the Driver used to go sideways pretty easily and for some/many wasn't that easy to even get airbourne or at least hit on a decent trajectory, especially in a 'slice' wind.


Now the Driver with it's massive 460cc head and lightweight shaft is probably the easiest club in the bag to hit - and when combined with the modern ball it goes sooo much straighter (and higher) than the combination of wood and balata - ref also the current thread about the small ball and the big ball - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,62156.0.html


For the guys we see on TV things might be different, but apart from occasionally on short par-4's do amateur players these days often play positional golf from the tee with a fairway metal or a hybrid or a these days highly unusual to find in a players bag 1-2-iron from the tee? Once upon a time it was the norm.


As mentioned above, side of the fairway and where not to miss are key elements, but these days that can be achieved with a Driver whereas once upon a time if tee shot position where important even amateur players would reach for fairways woods and long irons.


atb

[Matt Dawson]

Interesting discussion. I would hypothesize that the strategy depends on the particular challenge of the course in question.

I looked at Cary’s estimate at 1 in 54 holes and thought that was probably about right, given we play off similar handicaps and I’m also mainly focused on finding the fairway rather than picking particular sides. But I play mainly at 2 courses; one a heathland and one a links. When I add up the 14 driving holes at each course, I found to my surprise that I am 9-5 trying for fairway placement on the heathland vs the exact reverse on the links. Now I admit that the heathland may be a peculiarity - it is on particularly sloping land, with a profound advantage on a number of holes to the better player who is able to direct the ball to a particular part of the fairway.

When I drive home from the heathland course and replay my round in my head, the biggest correlation between feeling that I’ve played “well” or “badly” seems to be largely connected with how well I’ve driven the ball (rather than number of putts, up and downs made etc). Being in good position on the fairway on every hole naturally seems to lead to hitting more greens and hence a better score.

The links is flatter, tee shots are more challenged by the wind, and the course places more of an emphasis on approach shots and short game skills around a set of small, tight greens. I don’t particularly care where on the fairway I am, or even if I am in the rough (within reason) as the benefit of playing a wedge to the green trumps being on the correct side of the fairway with say a 7 iron. I’m not sure whether this makes sense reading it back, but I must admit it surprised me when I really thought about it.

I guess it dovetails with what Tom says about his designs “...but especially so around the greens. There's nearly always a good place to miss the green, and a very bad place to miss it”. Certainly driving home from the links course, my innate sense of “playing well” is much more governed by how many greens I hit (or got up and down) than how accurately I drove the ball

[Ryan Coles]

Most golfers couldn't hit their own ass with a banjo.


Much nonsense is spoken about them choosing a particular side of the fairway. Their dispersion and margin for error is far beyond that. People overstating their strategic genius is second only to people over estimating their driving distance.


Truth is they decide what their strategy was after they've finished and depending on where the ball went, not before.

[Michael Graham]

Ryan,


I absolutely agree. I think for most club golfers the first objective is clear the ladies tee. As long as one's tee shot is find-able and hopefully in play most mid to high handicappers would be pretty pleased.


Does anyone have a statistical breakdown of the numbers of fairways hit by each handicap category?


 

[Matt Dawson]

"Much nonsense is spoken about them choosing a particular side of the fairway."

Ryan, the closing 3 holes at my course each have a big hill/hump on the right side of the fairway that penalises a weak slice or a push. The speed slot/flattish area down the left side is the natural choice to aim for if you are a decent player. Are you really saying that you would ignore that and just whale away regardless? Surely everyone aims at something....

Disclaimer - I don't know your handicap btw. Fully accept there may be different strategies for different skill levels...but consider putting; higher handicappers are still trying to hole out when they face a long putt. I'm sure they don't think "Oh well, anywhere in that section of green will do" and hit it aimlessly. I'm just extending that to driving
 

[Niall C]

Most golfers couldn't hit their own ass with a banjo.


Much nonsense is spoken about them choosing a particular side of the fairway. Their dispersion and margin for error is far beyond that. People overstating their strategic genius is second only to people over estimating their driving distance.


Truth is they decide what their strategy was after they've finished and depending on where the ball went, not before.

Ryan


You are confusing ability to conceive a shot/strategy and the ability to carry it through.


Golfers might not be able to achieve what they set out to do but they can still formulate a plan standing on the tee. While there will be those that give the game zero thought the vast majority do have a basic plan even if there ability to accomplish what they set out to do is limited as I say. I speak as a poor to average driver of the ball.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Ryan

You are confusing ability to conceive a shot/strategy and the ability to carry it through.

Golfers might not be able to achieve what they set out to do but they can still formulate a plan standing on the tee.

Niall

Si...and the plan changes with each successive bad shot.


Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm on board with Sean as to angles of attack.  Of course it depends on the course and severity of the approach shot. You can't hit it in the rough at Oakmont or Bethpage Black and expect much as Cary postulated. However at my home course , Greate Bay , where the rough is benign and the course isn't overly long  the rough is often far superior to the wrong side of the fairway . What I don't like its narrow fairways with death left and despair right.


It brings to light another question which I'm ambivalent on that of trees that force you to curve a shot from the wrong side of the fairway .  Many think that this is anathema to good architecture . I'm not on board. We have a great tree overhanging the fourth green on the right side . If you hit it in the right side of the fairway younhave to flight it or play to the left side of the green . It's wonderful,and really only impacts the low handicappers , as a low slice is perfect lol!

[Niall C]

Ryan

You are confusing ability to conceive a shot/strategy and the ability to carry it through.

Golfers might not be able to achieve what they set out to do but they can still formulate a plan standing on the tee.

Niall

Si...and the plan changes with each successive bad shot.


Ciao

Correct 

[BCrosby]

I must live in a different golfing universe from Cary, even though we play to similar handicaps. Take Cuscowilla, a course we both know:


1st -  drive left side fw
2nd - drive left side fw (try to hold your ball on the high side of the fw)
4th - drive right side fw, taking off as much of the lake as you dare
5th - you gotta pick left or right side route around the centerline hazard
7th - place drive as close to right side of fw tree as possible


I'll stop there. In my experience most all golfers, whether high or low handicappers, try to take those fairly obvious "lines of charm" to the green.".


Bob 

[Ben Hollerbach]

I can't recall the last round I played where I just stood on the tee and swung away towards the fairway. I'm always trying to hit some portion of the fairway, both focusing on left to right and distance off of the tee. Especially with hickories where the line into the green is nearly more important than the approach distance. being in the rough on the correct side of the hole is often preferable to being in the fairway on the incorrect side. The modern game does seem to shy away from this practice as the ability to hit the ball long and straight seems to favor trying to hit the fairway rather than trying to work the golf ball into the right spot.

[Philippe Binette]

had a nice debate with Kyle frantz while building the prairie club...
on the 12th hole, Kyle was working the green to generate some internal contour.. after a while, we met at the top of the hill (300 yards from the green).
So Kyle was talking to me about the internal contour of the green and how they would force the player to get close to the huge dangerous right fairway bunker on the lay up shot to attack the back left hole location and so on and so forth..
I said to Kyle... Kyle you're right in theory (and he is right)... but in reality, the fairway is 50 yards wide along the fairway bunker... nobody would dare getting close to the bunker on purpose, to negotiate an internal green contour... the average player will only tried to advance the ball and no embarass himself... and even if he plays close to the bunker he's not accurate enough to hit a 9-iron on purpose to use the internal contour... so... what is the purpose of all this.
 even as a 6-8 handicap I would try to advance the ball in play about 120 yard from the green and hit a wedge from there.. no way I'm going to put myself in trouble and miss a 50-yard wide fairway for a potential angle....
What is strategy
 

[Thomas Dai]

I can't recall the last round I played where I just stood on the tee and swung away towards the fairway. I'm always trying to hit some portion of the fairway, both focusing on left to right and distance off of the tee. Especially with hickories where the line into the green is nearly more important than the approach distance. being in the rough on the correct side of the hole is often preferable to being in the fairway on the incorrect side. The modern game does seem to shy away from this practice as the ability to hit the ball long and straight seems to favor trying to hit the fairway rather than trying to work the golf ball into the right spot.

Nicely put Ben. I like the reference to playing hickories. With the ground game angle is just about everything, with the modern air game, except in certain turf and wind conditions, angle doesn't matter as much, especially with receptive (soft) greens.


atb

[Sean_A]

Philippe


Your opinion is exactly why I say that the best way to encourage strategy is to have a f&f course.  All the best strategy design intentions in the world don't add up to much on a soft course.  The softer the course, the more protection greens need and the more crazy greens have to be.  Otherwise its a snore fest.   



Assuming a course is f&f, if you aren't tempted by the best line of attack


A. The danger near that line is too great and/or

B. The penalty for the safe play isn't severe enough and/or

C. The player doesn't have enough experience to know any better

Much of the problem with this entire concept is if courses are f&f, it often takes a few plays before the penny drops..we only find out our position is poor when we get to the ball...hence the joy of wide fairways...find the ball easy enough, but it ain't so easy to make par. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Philippe


What was the nature of the bunker, was it one of those long ones going up the side of the fairway or was it relatively shallow in a tee to green direction ? Did the golfer not have the option to play short or fly by it to gain the advantage ? The reason I ask is that I have a low handicap friend who is very adept at maneuvering his ball round links courses by laying up just short of bunkers that guard the best angle of approach. Classic course management (sometimes known as strategy  ) where the player isn't scared to leave the driver in the bag.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

........a friend who is who is very adept at maneuvering his ball round links courses by laying up just short of bunkers that guard the best angle of approach. Classic course management (sometimes known as strategy  ) where the player isn't scared to leave the driver in the bag.
Niall

A few have been pretty good at this over the decades but not many better than this chap - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM2BKFSw_Ko


atb

[Niall C]

Ah yes, I had the pleasure of once meeting Mr Thomson at the Dukes course that he designed and having lunch with him. Asked all sorts of impertinent questions on his design philosophy but what I recall most was his sage advice which was don't bother becoming an architect, become a shaper, there's more money in it ! A lovely man.


Niall

[Joe Sponcia]

Ryan,


I absolutely agree. I think for most club golfers the first objective is clear the ladies tee. As long as one's tee shot is find-able and hopefully in play most mid to high handicappers would be pretty pleased.


Does anyone have a statistical breakdown of the numbers of fairways hit by each handicap category?

Michael,


I just submitted an "in my opinion" piece on trees but probably won't go to online print until December.  This was an interesting tidbit that I think ties into your question:


Greens in Reg by handicap:


25-30 - 10%
20-25 - 12%
15-20 - 20%
10-15 - 27%
  5-10 - 36%
   0-5  - 47%

This is why width matters (in my view) when the average golfer only hits 3-4 greens per round.  Combine that with sub 30 yard fairways and 'strategy' becomes survival. 

[Kalen Braley]

I think Niall alluded to the point I was going to mention.


Just because one lacks the ability to regularly hit the part of the fairway you want, doesn't mean you don't try to execute it.  A course I used to play a lot in Spokane had an OB fence all along the right side of the 4th hole. Everytime I reached that hole I would always club down, use my 3w, and aim for the extreme left side of the fairway...knowing that if I it my normal fade it would end up in the middle and if I hit it straight it would be on the left side or even the left rough.

The vast majority of the time it worked out well and I rarely went OB on that hole.  That to me is how even high cappers can use "strategy" off the tee.

P.S.  This thread reminds me of a quip Ron White says in his standup..."Even though I had the right to remain silent, I didn't have the ability"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()