Do long hitters have too much of an advantage?

[Mark_Fine]

With all due respect, long (and accurate) hitters will ALWAYS have an advantage.  They might not be able to putt or have no short game but that is a different story.  Length and accuracy are a huge advantage and frankly there is little to nothing an architect can do about it without tricking up the golf course or setting it up so conditions neutralize this skill. 


I was playing in a member guest event at Spring Creek Ranch in Memphis TN.  The 16th hole is about 375 yards and plays like an elbow hole around a lake to a green tucked on the other side.  Depending on the hole location, a shorter drive (maybe 210-230 yards) along the lake can leave a better angle into the green.  A long and accurate drive (maybe 270-290 yards) to the corner of the elbow can leave a tougher angle but a gap wedge.  I was playing the hole with a kid who played college golf at Arkansas.  He stood on the tee trying to decide whether to hit driver or three wood - only he wasn’t playing to the elbow, he was trying to drive the green (320 yards of carry over the lake).  He hit driver and flew it to the back edge of the green - probably too much club     Angles didn’t mean a thing to this kid on the golf course and there was little one could do to try to defend against where he could hit the golf ball so why try!


The USGA tried to neutralize the long hitter at Merion by narrowing all the fairways and forcing everyone to play to the same areas off the tee.  It was a huge mistake in my opinion as it took the risk/reward out of play on many of the holes especially on most all of the shorter par fours. 


Length coupled with accuracy is always going to be an advantage and there is nothing you can do about it on most golf holes that I have seen.  What are we going to do, eliminate all straight holes, all elbow holes, all dogleg holes, … What about so called “par fives”?  Unless the architect is going to force everyone to play from the same spots by dictating all play with rough, water, other hazards, …, length and accuracy will always be a big advantage. 

[Eric LeFante]

Length and accuracy should always be rewarded.


I think architects can design holes that allows long hitters AND short hitters to hit to a particular side of the fairway to get the best angle. I also think holes can be designed that can really make long hitters think: do I want a longer approach shot from a great angle or a shorter approach shot from a not so great angle?


I don't think it's great architecture to put an artificial hazard in play that forces driver out of the long hitters hand. Natural hazards sometimes force players to lay up and that's okay (8th hole Pebble Beach). It is great architecture when a long hitter has to make a decision and some choose to hit driver and take on more risk and some choose the safer option off the tee. As Michael pointed out, risk-reward is the key, not reward-reward.

[Sean_A]

I don't think anybody is arguing length and accuracy shouldn't be rewarded.  The question is to what degree? I spose thats like asking how long is a piece of string...the answer to many architectural questions.  From my perspective, regardless of all else, I want balance of features, green locations/styles, hole lengths, angles, open vs restricted etc etc.  But truthfully, if the greens are good and interesting, the land interesting, drainage and recoveries on offer, its a damn good start which may be all that is required in my price range.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I think the ultimate goal of the PGA Tour should be to have a balance of players in the top 30 or so.  But given the stat I posted earlier on this thread, they sure aren't getting it...

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Couldn't possibly disagree with you more!  That is why great courses like Merion get set up the way the were for the US Open - the USGA trying to balance the playing field and taking 3W's and Drivers out of most golfers hands. 


I was in Hawaii last year talking to a colleague who is a surfer.  We were on the Big Island and he was going over to Oahu to surf.  He said the waves in the one area were reaching 20+ feet in height.  However, he said he couldn't surf in that spot because at that height if you can't hold your breath for at least 4 minutes you could drown.  If you want to surf with the big boys, there are certain skill sets you need to have.  The PGA Tour is no different and whether we like it or not, unfortunately 300+ yard drives with accuracy is one of those skill sets that is needed. 
Mark 

[Eric LeFante]

Kalen,
Couldn't possibly disagree with you more!  That is why great courses like Merion get set up the way the were for the US Open - the USGA trying to balance the playing field and taking 3W's and Drivers out of most golfers hands. 


I was in Hawaii last year talking to a colleague who is a surfer.  We were on the Big Island and he was going over to Oahu to surf.  He said the waves in the one area were reaching 20+ feet in height.  However, he said he couldn't surf in that spot because at that height if you can't hold your breath for at least 4 minutes you could drown.  If you want to surf with the big boys, there are certain skill sets you need to have.  The PGA Tour is no different and whether we like it or not, unfortunately 300+ yard drives with accuracy is one of those skill sets that is needed. 
Mark

Zach Johnson has $44 million in career earnings and major wins at Augusta and St. Andrews, two courses that favor long hitters, that prove 300+ yard drives are not NEEDED!

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,


I think we're mixing things up here a bit.  Of course there are no short hitters on tour.  Even the shortest guy is long compared to the average weekend warrior.... but its about how players on tour stack up against each other.


As Eric pointed out, shorter guys on Tour can have great success, its just they don't do it anywhere near as much.

[Mark_Fine]

Karen/Eric,
There are always exceptions and one skill set can “help” make up for another. But like Kalen said, there are NO short hitters on tour.  Even Zach can hit it out there 300+ yards. 


Just like in surfing, you don’t always need to hold your breath for 4+ minutes and those who can only hold it for 3 might get by some of the time but they also die more often. 

[Kalen Braley]

Karen/Eric,
There are always exceptions and one skill set can “help” make up for another. But like Kalen said, there are NO short hitters on tour.  Even Zach can hit it out there 300+ yards. 


Just like in surfing, you don’t always need to hold your breath for 4+ minutes and those who can only hold it for 3 might get by some of the time but they also die more often.

Mark,


If we're using 300 as the benchmark, then that doesn't really hold.  The average tour drive is 295 and only roughly 25% of players average over 300.


My complaint is that setups too often cater to this 25%, instead of everyone.


P.S.  Zach averages 290 and is currently 146th...

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
All I am saying is that long and accurate is a huge advantage.  If someone comes on tour who can hit it accurately 400 yards they are going to have a huge advantage on virtually any golf course.  But who cares, you can’t design for those few and if you try you will likely ruin things for the “average” golfer - how ever you define that these days.
Mark

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,


Fully agreed.  When guys like Rory are on, there is nothing anyone can do.  But this thread really hasn't been about outliers, as they will always exist.  Its a question of what setups are benefiting what type of players?


Tigers dad was absolutely correct years ago when he said lengthening ANGC will only serve to benefit longer players (including Tiger) even more, and he was correct. Since Tigers win in 97, only a handful of players like Weir and Zach have won since then....most of the rest have all been long bombers...Bubba twice, Phil twice, Tiger 3 additional times, Carbrera, Scott, Sergio, etc

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
The title of this thread is "Do long hitters have too much of an advantage?"  Long is a relative term but the answer is that there is a huge advantage to be able to hit the golf ball on long way (and accurate) on almost any golf course.  And I will go further and say that any golf course that doesn't favor a long and accurate hitter has major flaws (chip and putts excluded  ).  I can't think of a single golf course that I have played where it is better to be short and accurate than long and accurate.  Granted this doesn't mean that every hole on the golf course should favor an accurate power player but as I tried to explain in my earlier example, a 375 yard hole that for most of us is full of strategy, encourages thinking off the tee as to the correct line of play and the right distance off the tee,... is only a 3W or a Driver over everything directly to the green for the long accurate player.   What should the architect do, put a net up so going for the green is not an option

For some players there is little defense and time should not be wasted on designing for them.  Give them some back tees (if the club/course wants to spend the money) and leave it at that.
Mark

[Michael Tamburrini]

I'd say yes. Being long and offline seems to be better than being short and accurate.

The lob wedge (and the golf ball) plays a large part in this too. With 60+ degree wedges, players can get so much spin being offline from the tee isn't a problem. We'll see this at Carnoustie this week. In 1999 balls took three bounces on the green before there was any spin. Now - on the driest course in decades - they'll stop and spin back. So angles and accuracy off the tee tend to matter a lot less.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think the ultimate goal of the PGA Tour should be to have a balance of players in the top 30 or so.  But given the stat I posted earlier on this thread, they sure aren't getting it...

Kalen,I have two questions about the article you linked.
First, do you think the overall conclusion of the article is in line with the quote you provided? 

And secondly, is there anything different in 2018 than there was in 1998 or 1978 or 1958 in this regard?  Haven't long hitters ALWAYS enjoyed an advantage?  More to the point, why shouldn't they?  Bobby Jones was one of the really long hitters of his day.  Palmer was known, in his heyday, as a great driver.  Nicklaus and Woods are the case studies for distance winning.  This has never NOT been true.

Mark Broadie's research shows pretty conclusively the long drivers on Tour are also, for the most part, relatively straight as well; "long but wild" is largely a myth.  (It's important to note that he distinguishes between missing the fairway a little and missing by a lot.)  You never show up on Tour, or at least don't stay for long, if you aren't long enough AND accurate enough; distance alone doesn't get it done.

Actually, the stat that correlates most closely to money won on Tour, as well as excellence at all levels of golf, is proximity of approach, and it is stating the obvious to say that a long hitter who is reasonably accurate is going to be hitting shorter clubs into greens and likely hitting it closer.  So the correlation between distance and money is MUCH greater than the correlation between accuracy and money.

[Mark_Fine]

I saw that two bombers, Dustin Johnson and Ian Poulter () both hit their tee shots into the green side burn 457 yards away during a practice round!  Good thing that hazard was there 😉

[Michael Felton]

Mark Broadie's research shows pretty conclusively the long drivers on Tour are also, for the most part, relatively straight as well; "long but wild" is largely a myth.  (It's important to note that he distinguishes between missing the fairway a little and missing by a lot.)  You never show up on Tour, or at least don't stay for long, if you aren't long enough AND accurate enough; distance alone doesn't get it done.

I think there are plenty of people out there who are long and wild, but they don't make the PGA Tour. I think it's also true to say that as people in general get longer, they tend to get straighter too. Hitting it long for the most part requires solid and square contact, which will generally mean as people hit it longer, they'll also hit it straighter. That sounds contradictory, but among those players who can hit it only 200 yards, a lot of them are also wild. Players who can hit it 300 yards are more accurate on average (you have to hit it solidly to hit it 300), but some of them hit it wild (you don't have to miss by much at high clubhead speeds to have the ball go a long way off line). Watch some of the LDA stuff (long drive). Those guys hit it miles, but only have to hit a 60 yard wide grid once out of 6 or 8 balls to count. How many of them are on the PGA Tour? If it was all about length, it would be the same people in LDA as on the PGA tour. So far as I am aware those are two sets that look like this on a Venn diagram: 0 0


In any case, if you can hit it 50 yards further than I can, why shouldn't you have an advantage? If you hit it straighter than me you should have an advantage for that too. If I can hit it closer than you, then I should have an advantage for that. I don't think architects should do anything to try and remove the benefits that the long hitter has over the short hitter. I do think that it is a good idea to make sure that the tees people are playing from offer the same challenges to each player. And then I think it falls on the player to make the right decision as to which tee to play. If you're a short hitter and you want to compete with the guys who hit it long, then your either not going to stick around for very long or you better make sure that you make up for it with other parts of your game (like Zach Johnson does or Corey Pavin did/does).


Lastly, I think a long succession of holes like 8 at Shinnecock where length gives you both a better angle and a larger target would get tiresome, but I don't mind it once. I saw Gary Wolstenholme playing at RSG in the Open in likely 2003, but may have been 1993 and he couldn't clear the bunker on the 4th. He had to play to a very narrow area to the left of the bunker. That left him way back. Just about the entire rest of the field could clear the bunker. That's fine. If he wants to compete, then either he needs to hit it longer, or he needs to pull up the rest of his game.

[Thomas Dai]

I wonder if there are any long hitters who wish they were shorter hitters?
Atb

[Niall C]

Yes, they're the guys hitting a 3 iron from the tee.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

I understand there are built in advantages to being long that will never be negated.  Once again, its about balance.

And what i'm advocating is playing courses or using setups that help bring out other qualities as well.

For example, the 380 yard par 4, which you rarely see on Tour anymore.  For the pros this is a shortish hole where the long hitters lose thier advantage. A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one.  Why not use a few more of these?


Seems like most Tour par 4s are 440-500, with a few 320 ones sprinkled in.

[Garland Bayley]

A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one. 

I believe Dr. Brodie has taught them otherwise. Getting as close as possible is the winning strategy.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

For example, the 380 yard par 4, which you rarely see on Tour anymore.  For the pros this is a shortish hole where the long hitters lose thier advantage. A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one.  Why not use a few more of these?

Unless the pin is way up front or there's some other big advantage to being able to spin the ball a good bit, they're better off from 60 than 110.

So are amateurs.

[A.G._Crockett]

A 60 yard wedge approach for those guys is likely less preferred than a full 100-110 yard one. 

I believe Dr. Brodie has taught them otherwise. Getting as close as possible is the winning strategy.

Garland, you are correct; Broadie's data on this is clear.

[Tom_Doak]

Long hitters will always have an advantage.  I just try to dampen the effect of that, instead of exaggerating it.  The more we can do that, the better the good player must play to cash in on his advantage.