Poulter on this Week's Playoff

[Jason Topp]

Ian Poulter was not a fan of the last hole at the course the PGA Tour played this week. 


His point is that it gave a few players a huge advantage.  In the playoff, DJ hit the ball 26 yards farther the Spieth but had approximately 90 yard advantage with the approach.


https://twitter.com/IanJamesPoulter/status/901940319280824320
The hole appears to be a perfect example of a heroic tee shot, but is it good design to doubly reward distance in this fashion?  It seems to me that many of the best holes in the world provide such an advantage and that classic strategic or heroic design suggests exactly this sort of approach.  Have technological changes rendered such design out of date or should we reconsider the notion that an aggressive tee shot that takes a risk should be rewarded?  Or is it a matter of appropriately rewarding such risks?

[Tom_Doak]

I've thought for a long time that rewarding an especially long tee shot with a boost of extra length is kind of silly.


Just like I don't think long hitters would approve if a hole got steadily narrower into a funnel, the longer you hit the tee shot.


But you see way more of the former than the latter, because architects like hearing commentators talk about "risk / reward "

[jeffwarne]

no problem with the concept, perhaps even balanced by Tom's funnel hole, but...
perhaps a different hole for the playoff?


No worries though,by the time they go back to Glen Oaks- Spieth hits it the same place DJ did
Of course DJ will be on the green...
and both will be over 50.

[Mark Kiely]

Sounds like Poults missed the 18th in regulation when DJ's drive was in rough so nasty that he couldn't even attempt to reach the green with his second. There was risk and reward for attempting to hit a big tee ball there. In the playoff, DJ hit it perfectly and got the reward.

[Steve Lang]

Watched like a minute of the whole toonamint and saw JS card that double after dunking the ball on that early par3 with fronting pond, when leading by 5 strokes... almost scratched out bogey...


can't wait for The Masters next year

[George Pazin]

There is a lengthy thread on this in the archives, I recall the argument well. I believe the thread was started by chipoat (can't say I recall a post from him in a long time), and he posited the theory that length is its own reward, we shouldn't double reward the bombers with other advantages as well.


I happen to concur with chipoat, and when we have design contests, on here and otherwise, I've generally tried to make my holes a balance of sorts: you may have a shorter approach, but it's from a lesser angle, or you may have a shorter approach, but you have to flirt with a bunker, etc. Of course, my designs never merit a mention in any contests...


I recall more people being on the other side, but I'm getting older quickly and maybe I just don't remember it well. I'll try to find the thread. In general, I agree with Ian.

[Kalen Braley]

I wonder if the PGA tour bombers are so insansely long that they can drive thier ball to places that designers intentionally made forgiving for the average joe who is just trying to recover to on the 2nd shot because they found the rough or the hole is long.

[Peter Pallotta]

Usually I'd be in agreement with you all. But in this case, absolute mastery trumps everything -- every theory, every complaint. DJ hit a remarkable golf shot -- not just remarkably long, but also remarkably accurate and daring and confident. 10 minutes earlier on the same hole he missed his shot and had to scramble to make par (when JS, with a better and more typical approach shot, had the chance to close him out); the next time up he nailed it and had a tap in birdie. That's the game. That's what architecture is meant to do -- provide a framework and forum to either crumple or excel, to pull off the glorious golf shot or (almost) lose it all in the attempt.

[cary lichtenstein]

Ian Poulter was not a fan of the last hole at the course the PGA Tour played this week. 


His point is that it gave a few players a huge advantage.  In the playoff, DJ hit the ball 26 yards farther the Spieth but had approximately 90 yard advantage with the approach.


https://twitter.com/IanJamesPoulter/status/901940319280824320
The hole appears to be a perfect example of a heroic tee shot, but is it good design to doubly reward distance in this fashion?  It seems to me that many of the best holes in the world provide such an advantage and that classic strategic or heroic design suggests exactly this sort of approach.  Have technological changes rendered such design out of date or should we reconsider the notion that an aggressive tee shot that takes a risk should be rewarded?  Or is it a matter of appropriately rewarding such risks?

26 yards is not that much, 60 yards is. Dustin Johnson won the tournament on 18 the first time with his smart play to lay up and then recogniging his mistake off the tee and challenging the water. Good for him

[JESII]

I wonder if Poulter think his advantage over the guys he's 30 yards longer than should be minimized!?!

[Bob Montle]

Spieth said the wind flipped in the 10 minutes before the playoff.  They were both hitting into the wind when they first played 18.

He said he expected DJ to take his line over the water but was hoping he would make a mistake and play straight.

Spieth added that he could have made the carry over the water, as it turned out, but he didn't trust the wind as it had just flipped.

[Kalen Braley]

I think every player brings his own strengths to the golf course.


Whether you are long off the tee, an excellent ball striker, a great iron player, magic with wedges, or fantastic with the flat stick.  Everyone has thier own built in advantages.


In this situation, if memory serves me correct, DJ didn't get a big kick.  He just took advantage of a severe dog leg left hole to get a lot more "extra" yardage out of a drive that was only 15-20 yards longer.  Its basic trigonometry at play here.