[TEPaul]

There's always been that old adage that it's not a good idea in golf and architecture to take the driver out of any golfer's hand on the tee. And it's always interested me where various golfers and golf analysts come down on this particular subject--eg it's very hard to predict who might feel which way about the subject. There're a few threads that touch on this subject right now on this website.

It's true that there are now holes all over the world that very good players used to have the option of hitting a driver and due to increased length they no longer realistically have that option.

In a long conversation with Frank Thomas a couple months ago on the question of increased length he mentioned that this old idea in design of "never take the driver out of their hand" just might have to be rethought and sort of go the way of the buggy whip to some extent (and it will be exaccerbated by firmer and faster conditions, as he pointed out).

Personally, it doesn't bother me at all and I've always been real short and could and will always be able to hit driver anywhere.

But I should report an interesting observation in this regard. PVGC could be one of the best examples (due to it's prevalence of cross hazards) where the driver is coming out of good players hands with regularity and has been for a number of years.

My observation in playing some really long knockers in something like the Crump Cup---guys like Sigel and Holtgrieve---that it appeared to me it's probably harder for them to play that course as far as tee shot strategy and club selection than it is for me. They're constantly having to think on tees what club will take them near to cross hazards without running out of room. I never had to worry about that there so in way my strategies were always clearer---less to worry about in other words.

I do completely admit that the strategies these long hitters  have to consider today may not be the same strategies and tee shot club selections George Crump once envisioned but so what---the question is are the new strategies interesting and effective?

Maybe in an odd way it's actually better to have increased situations in a strategic sense where long hitters have to think more about running out of room---it just adds another dimension of thought to the game and its strategies.

What do you all thing about this?

[allysmith]

Tom,

I wonder whether we are looking at two different aspects of golf here.

In the past a 'long' hitter could be expected to reach 225 - 250 yards from the tee and other woods and Irons reduced accordingly.

For example I watched Peter Thomson and arnold Palmer in a challenge match (from the mid 60s) the other evening and a 110 yard shot called for a 9 iron and a 145yard a 'soft' 6 iron

It is my opinion that the gulf between long and short hitters has increased disproportionately with technology.

Therefore designing for long hitters leaves the course unplayable by the shorter hitters. Whereas in the past they (the architects) had a reasonably sporting chance of giving everyone a challenging course.

IMHO It is perfectly acceptable to take the driver out of the long hitters hands on occasion by presenting a challenge where his (presumed) increased skill will give an advantage on the second shot.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- The old adage is new to me. It does seem a little out of character to have something in this game so absolute or subjective, the way the adage seems to expouse.

One of my favorite truths is that "it don't say how on the scorecard". So, the decision to hit, what club when, is completly up to the golfer depending on circumstance.
Another example of how trite the adage may have been, is the story about Moe Norman and when his caddie told him it was a driver wedge hole, he proceeded to hit wedge off the tee and driver up on the green. Proving the caddie right, while simutaneously proving his mastery of skill and for me, showing a true imagination.
My last thought on this subject is that a new adage should be to not force the golfer to hit driver, but to tempt him to hit it.

[Dan_Callahan]

My last thought on this subject is that a new adage should be to not force the golfer to hit driver, but to tempt him to hit it.

That is the key, in my opinion. Just look at what happened to Tiger at the Master's. One of the most mentally tough players in the game succumbed to the temptation of trying to drive the par 4 third and walked away with a double bogey. In retrospect, an iron and a wedge would have given him a birdie chance, but the temptation was too much to resist (something I would expect from a hacker like myself but pretty shocking from the best player in the world). Of course, if he had pulled it off, everyone would have been talking about a "courageous shot under extreme pressure," but he didn't. It's holes like that (driveable par 4s, cape holes, etc.) that place a premium on strategy no matter how long the player is.

So I agree—building holes that tempt you to hit driver are in many ways as important to the playability of a course as are holes that force you to hit driver. The latter is primarily a test of ability, while the former tests both strategy and ability.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

That story about Moe Norman is true but there's more to it that I got from my closest friend whose Canadian and played a ton of golf with Moe Norman. When Moe did that it was on the 18th hole of some course and Moe needed par to set the course record which would've been something like his 19th course record. Moe hit a 9 iron off the tee and a driver to the green, made par and set the course record!

This friend of mine said Moe Norman's game was truly other-worldly, that his rep of being one of the world's greatest ball strikers was probably true and he could basically hit any type of shot on call he could imagine.

But Moe was always pretty weird saying twice everything he said, with that high pitched squeal (I think all Canadians have that high pitched squeal when they get excited).

This friend played a ton of pro-ams with Moe and he said it was unusual if Moe didn't hit at least two flags per round with approach shots squealing "Fat flags, fat flags" and if any of his amateur partners started making birdies or eagles Moe would squeal, "You don't need me, you don't need me" and a couple of times they actually thought he might walk right off the course!

[A_Clay_Man]

TP- I also heard that the organizers of that tournament weren't too happy with Moe doing what he did. To me, that is not very spiritual. Telling someone else how they played the hole, diminished in some capacity, the integrity of their tournament.

[TEPaul]

Dan Callahan:

Good post. I was sort of thinking a bit more along the lines of older and existing courses that just can't find the length on their courses---eg no elasticity. Does that really matter? My personal opinion is not really!

But two different examples;

At the Walker Cup at Ganton last summer--it was obvious that's a course where even the long hitters could be tempted into using driver a good deal--despite that golf course being a very old one.

The American side, for some reason, chose to play very conservatively off the tees while the GB&I team played really aggressively with lots of drivers off the tee. Frankly, it didn't surprise me as my experience is Europeans are and have always been more aggressive off tees than Americans. In the case of the 2003 Walker Cup I truly believe that the greater tee shot aggressiveness of GB&I basically won the cup for them.

But PVGC---I hate to say this but for a good and long golfer there really is no more than 2-3 holes max where a long hitter would realistically think to hit driver there off the tee. However, with PVGC's new tee length additions that's going to potentially increase to 5-6 holes this year! But still that's an aweful long way from a potential maximum of 14 holes!

[Dan Kelly]

But PVGC---I hate to say this but for a good and long golfer there really is no more than 2-3 holes max where a long hitter would realistically think to hit driver there off the tee. However, with PVGC's new tee length additions that's going to potentially increase to 5-6 holes this year! But still that's an aweful long way from a potential maximum of 14 holes!

That certainly sounds like an indictment of Pine Valley, here in the year 2004.

Seems to me that on an ideal course, a good player would at least be tempted to use driver on virtually every par-4 and par-5.

[ForkaB]

Amen, Dan

How can Pine Valley be so "great" if 60-80% of the  non-par3-holes are lay-ups off the tee?

[A.G._Crockett]

There are two different situations here.

One the one hand, there are holes (and courses) on which the landing areas narrow as you move out from the tee; you can hit driver any distance you are able, but the risk/reward level is very high, and you must hit the driver with precision roughly similar to a short iron!  Pete Dye courses seem this way to me.  The skill needed to accomplish that has always been among the most demanding in golf, and probably gives rise to the maxim of not taking the driver out of the player's hands.  The lesser player, or the better player choosing to be conservative at the moment, can make choices.

On the other hand, there are holes (and courses) that have bunkering, doglegs, etc. that were designed for certain distances that are now routinely exceeded by "expert" players, taking bunkers, hazards, and other design features out of play.  These are the holes and courses that bring forth comments such as those of Frank Thomas.

[A_Clay_Man]

If there are 14 clubs in the bag and there are 14 holes which are not par 3's, what's so wrong with 20 percent, for one club? Plus, TP did qualify it by saying it was only for the longest hitters.

If anything, the quality of PV jumps in quality with what you call an indictment. Where's it written "how" is important?

TP- Do these exceptionally long hitters frequently break the course record?

[TEPaul]

"TP- Do these exceptionally long hitters frequently break the course record?"

Adam:

Definitely not!

But I can see somebody turning this whole issue as it relates to PVGC around and claiming that since long hitters basically can't hit driver on so many tees there that this fact alone is completely removing the long hitters innate talent and natural advantage and forcing him onto a par with a shorter tee ball hitter. I can see a guy like Matt Ward making that point because that's very similar to a point he seems to make on here a lot. And it is a good point--sort of but probably not as it relates to PVGC.

In a way at PVGC it would probably make very little difference if the crosss hazards were removed to allow long hitters to really air it out. Most of the holes where they have to lay it up short of cross hazards are still really lofted irons approaches in from in front of the cross hazards anyway, so what difference would it really make? The only hole I can see making a difference might be #7 where a long hitter might get far enough down if Hell's Half Acre wasn't there to go for the green in two. Other than that if the PVGC cross hazards were all removed it probably wouldn't make much difference in the end!

I think this cross hazard thing at PVGC and how it does take the driver out of long hitters hands and make them think even more is pretty interesting and pretty neat actually, although, again, this is not exactly the type of strategy Crump could ever have had in mind!

[ForkaB]

Adam (or anybody else, for that matter....)

How would you like a course that took the putter (just another one of those 14 clubs, non?) out of your hands?  Maybe one with all punchbowl greens and 12" holes?  Would that "indictment" make that course "jump" in quality, for you?

Any course that does not offer one the opportunity to test the driver on most if not all non "short" holes is diminished, IMHO.

[Dan Kelly]

I can see somebody turning this whole issue as it relates to PVGC around and claiming that since long hitters basically can't hit driver on so many tees there that this fact alone is completely removing the long hitters innate talent and natural advantage and forcing him onto a par with a shorter tee ball hitter.

That's not at all what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that an ideal course doesn't take away, from the best players, the temptation to use the most exciting club in the bag ... the one club, not just coincidentally, with which the longest players can go most wrong and allow the shorter, straighter hitter back into the game.

Surely you, as one shorter hitter who's repeatedly told us of beating longer players, can't really be advocating course designs that take the temptation to use driver away from the longest hitters. Say it ain't so, Tom I!

[TEPaul]

"How would you like a course that took the putter (just another one of those 14 clubs, non?) out of your hands?  Maybe one with all punchbowl greens and 12" holes?  Would that "indictment" make that course "jump" in quality, for you?"

Great analogy Rich!

Yeah, RIGHT!

Rich asked:

"How can Pine Valley be so "great" if 60-80% of the  non-par3-holes are lay-ups off the tee?"

Rich:

Don't you worry your little head about this. From the tips at PVGC which obviously this relatively small contingent of long hitters plays from I completely guarantee you that you can hit driver just about 14 times without a concern in the world about running straight through a fairway into a cross hazard!

[TEPaul]

Dan Kelly:

You have a very fine point there. I'm not exactly advocating anything in particular here just sort of responding to some thngs others have said.

But if you're asking me if I think PVGC would be even better if it could somehow get the driver back into long hitters hands more or at least the temptation to do so---definitely I'd say yes.

And, you know what? They're about to do that to an extent and there very well may be another interesting way they could do that on a few other holes where they can't get additional tee length.

For really long hitters pre recent tee length addition at PVGC the only holes they seem to consider a driver are #12 (from the back tee), #15 (sometimes) and #16. But with the new tee additions the driver or the temptation to use it will be back on #7, #9, #13, #18.

And if PVGC would consider taking down some trees on the inside corners on #1, #6, possibly even #11 you'd have three more holes potentially tempting the driver.

And if PVGC would consider putting into fairway grass around the cross hazards on #4 they very well might even tempt driver there too. Who knows if they'd consider restoring the alternate fairway on #17 and extending it about 40-50 yards straight down the right side there they may even tempt a long hitters' driver there too.

If they could manage all that they'd then have potentially 12 holes out of 14 they could tempt a long hitter to use driver and that's not bad.

Again, it'd be interesting to see who all of the long hitter contingent that would tempt because as I said earlier laying up just in front of most all the existing cross hazards is just short irons in for long hitters anyway!

[Jeff_McDowell]

TEPaul, you wrote "In a way at PVGC it would probably make very little difference if the crosss hazards were removed to allow long hitters to really air it out. Most of the holes where they have to lay it up short of cross hazards are still really lofted irons approaches in from in front of the cross hazards anyway, so what difference would it really make?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it sounds like this could make a big difference. If you're suggesting that the cross hazards are forcing someone to layup and hit a wedge, getting rid of the cross hazard would allow someone to hit a big drive and then a bump and run. Or possibly drive the green with the risk of a serve penalty. Both these alternatives sound more interesting than driver wedge (in that order).

[A_Clay_Man]

Any course that does not offer one the opportunity to test the driver on most if not all non "short" holes is diminished, IMHO.

Rihc- IN TP's account of the Ganton last year he mentions how not hitting the driver may have been the nail in the coffins for the US team. For me, I see that not as an indictment of the course, but rather praise for the other teams confidence recoverabilitywise. If you know you can get up and down from anywhere, the only one pulling the driver out of the golfer's hands, is the golfer himself.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  I do know the quote you refer to about "taking the driver out of someone's hands."  It was mentioned to me by several low-handicap friends very early in my career, and I've always been conscious of it, because if you take the driver out of long hitters' hands on a regular basis, they will hate your courses.

In a sense it's the same as with any other skill set ... one talked about here is long grass around the greens taking away chipping and recovery play.  The players whose games are strongest in that area are the ones who will complain loudest.
Likewise, good iron players don't like big greens.

You are correct that Pine Valley doesn't have many driver holes for the Tour pro set, and has not had many for some time now.  (Remember Davis Love and his 1-iron at the Walker Cup?)  I hadn't thought about it before but you are absolutely right, it makes the golf course harder for those players because they have more to think about.

But Pine Valley can get away with this because A) it's Pine Valley and B) they don't deal with many first-time visitors.  If you designed similar problems into a public or resort course, the good players would come unglued, because they'd be driving through the fairway into trouble on many holes without having any idea of it.  The hardest thing about cross-hazards like that is that it's almost impossible to make it obvious from the tee where the end is ... so it's easy for a good player to misjudge the tee shot, and of course if he does that's the architect's fault.

Lucky for George Crump he's dead, or there would be a lot of guys who wanted to have a word with him.

I do believe there ought to be a couple of holes on any course where the player CAN hit driver, but where it's probably not the percentage play.  At Crystal Downs all of the short par-4's fit this description.  

High Pointe had four holes where you were better off hitting something besides driver ... the two short 4's on the front, plus a longish four and the par-5 18th.  Since it opened, they've added tees on the two short 4's; they cleared out some trees so there's less risk to hitting driver on the longish four; and they've tried several solutions so you don't have to lay up on the 18th tee shot.

Moral of the story?  You may be right that this would help to equalize the long hitters' advantage, but they aren't going to lie down and take it.

[JSlonis]

Rich,

Just because some of the tee shots at PVGC are layups for longer hitters doesn't negate the fact that they still can be difficult tee shots.  It also does not diminish the greatness of the course.  While the tee shots are very good at PVGC, the greensites are what make the course "worldclass".  They are simply among the finest collection of greensites you will find anywhere.  From an architectural standpoint, they are extremely good, and from a players perspective, they are hard to match for variety and strategy.

I have heard "through the grapevine" of some of the changes for added length and from what I can tell, these changes will ONLY make the course that much better.  There will be nothing done to the course to affect the integrity of Crump's original design.  I don't see the problem with reintroducing the Driver to some holes that always called for it prior to the technology boom of recent years.  What I have learned about George Crump while reading about and researching him over the past few years is that I believe he would have been the first person to suggest new ways to keep the course in line with the original standards he had set, and it seemed his intention, that if he remained alive, that PVGC would have been a work in progress for as long as he saw fit.

[tonyt]

In addition to evaluating the use of driver of the tee on a particular hole, one also has to realise that for every player on the planet, there is a different definition of when to take driver. Two players of equal distance playing together may have radically different thoughts. One uses driver on every non par 3 unless there isn't even a shoestring of fairway to hit. One looks at angles, fairway widths, positioning and total risk management and uses driver three times. Not every good player sets up their second shot with similar thoughts in mind, nor seems to want to. Someone's good angle in with a five iron is someone else's I can carry the trap and stop it on a dime anyway eight iron.

[ChrisHervochon]

Anybody ever read "The Course Beautiful" by Tillie in which there is an article entitled "The Cart Before the Horse"?  It seems to me maybe that due to technology these sorts of holes could be built with success.  For average hitters this sort of hole may not even have any affect, the short tee shot would only have to be hit by the longest hitters.  Does anybody think this sort of hole would be interesting?  As with anything in life, moderation is key, of course.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Chris,

There's a "cart before the horse" hole on my home course. I think it works o.k., but I don't know anyone else that likes. However, it would be a whole lot more fun if the tee shot tempted golfers to cut the dogleg instead of forcing them to lay up.

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:

The 425-yard tenth at High Pointe was originally such a hole.  There is a ridge about 225 yards out from the back tee which is twenty feet above the tee, and the hole doglegs left at that point, before going up another twenty-foot hill about thirty yards in front of a natural punchbowl green.

There were thick pine trees in the left corner of the dogleg, and if long hitters did not flirt with these, they would run out of fairway over the hill on the right with their drivers.  I always played the hole with a 3-wood tee shot, and did not mind leaving myself a long second because of the punchbowl green.  But the long hitters complained so much that they tore out some of the trees in the corner and made it an easier driving hole so those guys could hit driver.  It was possible to do that before, but it was a low-percentage shot, and I didn't mind laying up because usually an opponent would self-destruct by trying the driver.

That's the work that was the linchpin of my falling out with High Pointe -- they were spending money to make THAT change at a time when the golf course was in very poor condition and could have used some TLC.

[Tom_Doak]

I forgot to mention the effect of the topography:  you were also making the choice between a 200-yard second shot off an uphill lie or a 170-yard uphill approach off a DOWNHILL lie, because of the ridge in the landing area.  Now the long hitters just bust it down onto the flat, and everyone else has it way harder.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()