Course Setup To Combat Today's Bomb-And-Gouge Game

[Dicka]

9 hours ago, caniac6 said:

Balata would solve everything. They spin so much that the balls missing fairways, might miss the golf course.

 

Spot on! A spinnier tour ball and smaller driver heads...bring skill back into the game rather than just standing up and belting it as hard as you can.

[jons1]

Balls need to spin more... it will cause more offline shots and force a more conservative swing and play.

 

It's the ball, it always has been.  You don't fix that, you'll never change it.

[Shilgy]

5 hours ago, bigred90gt said:

You’re more than welcome to play those persimmons and play the course “as it was designed to be played” nothing in the world stopping you. 

Just saw an interesting article about architect design and how it should be played.  The gist was...why should the architect, or the guys on wrx or the USGA for that matter, decide how a player “should” play a golf course? Shouldn’t that be up to the individual player? Like the Lon Hinkle incident years ago where he saw a shortcut down the wrong fairway and a tree was planted overnight to prevent that play. Whose fault was it that no one thought of that before?

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Strictly speaking to the topic of course setup, what about this?:

 

Make the fairways WIDER, but the rough twice as long.  Like 10”.   At 20 yards wide with 5” rough, I’d choose to hit driver every time because I’m not much more likely to hit that ribbon with less than driver anyway, so might as well send it.  20 yards wide with 10” rough would be unwatchable.  But a wider fairway with much more penal rough could make me think about taking the risk, and bring some strategy into the decision.  
 

Just a thought, likely riddled with holes.  But ultra narrow with hackable rough doesn’t seem much of a driver deterrent.  

[Caddykev]

I feel like bomb and gouge wouldn’t have worked out as well in June. The greens were super receptive this week and are in general this time of year. They did get firmer as the week went on but nowhere near what they could have with June heat and as dry and firm as they could of got them. 

[Golf10]

3 minutes ago, Caddykev said:

I feel like bomb and gouge wouldn’t have worked out as well in June. The greens were super receptive this week and are in general this time of year. They did get firmer as the week went on but nowhere near what they could have with June heat and as dry and firm as they could of got them. 

 

Do they have subaire to firm them up?

[3whacker]

lengthening a golf course isn't always the answer because greens are designed to accept a certain trajectory shot from a certain # range of irons. When pros are hitting 8 irons close to 200 yards into a green that was designed to accept a mid to long iron it becomes defenseless..

 

does anyone wonder why TW doesnt play the stinger more often? its because the newer ball doesnt allow it, its all about launch angle and lift, they have used simple aerodynamics and applied it to the golf ball and the driver, and have learned to launch the ball to angles and distance not easily reachable by the amateur golfer

[EmperorPenguin]

 

57 minutes ago, Ashley Schaeffer said:

But ultra narrow with hackable rough doesn’t seem much of a driver deterrent.  

Bombers like Bryson, Rory, Brooks and Dustin are thinking, If it goes in the rough I have a chance I might get a decent lie, but if not I can wedge it to the green.  It's only 5 inches tall.  They have no fear.  10-12" rough will make them think twice.

 

Interesting, the idea of wider fairways to temp their egoes.  However, that will still give them more opportunities to gamble when the short knocker has no option.

[Caddykev]

37 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

Do they have subaire to firm them up?

They did but it’s been crazy cool here in ny for early sept so that might have had something to do with it.   Most likely though the USGA was afraid to push them to the limit because of the flack they get when they do.  

[Hawkeye77]

11 minutes ago, EmperorPenguin said:

 

Bombers like Bryson, Rory, Brooks and Dustin are thinking, If it goes in the rough I have a chance I might get a decent lie, but if not I can wedge it to the green.  It's only 5 inches tall.  They have no fear.  10-12" rough will make them think twice.

 

Interesting, the idea of wider fairways to temp their egoes.  However, that will still give them more opportunities to gamble when the short knocker has no option.

 

10-12 inch rough is stupid. Stupid.

[Kilo1545]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

10-12 inch rough is stupid. Stupid.

It's gotta be at least a foot deep or Bryson will overpower any course in the world!  He's on protein, man.  Protein!

[JDCON]

Alligators, windmills, and aggressive sea bass.

[MaineMariner]

This is a weird discussion. BAD was the only player under par this week... and he wasn't even the longest. Zach Johnson was in one of the final groupings. 

[EmperorPenguin]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

10-12 inch rough is stupid. Stupid.

Even more stupid was the US Open at Pinehurst with no rough at all.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

49 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

10-12 inch rough is stupid. Stupid.

Sorry, sir!  

[Ashley Schaeffer]

1 hour ago, EmperorPenguin said:

 

Bombers like Bryson, Rory, Brooks and Dustin are thinking, If it goes in the rough I have a chance I might get a decent lie, but if not I can wedge it to the green.  It's only 5 inches tall.  They have no fear.  10-12" rough will make them think twice.

 

Interesting, the idea of wider fairways to temp their egoes.  However, that will still give them more opportunities to gamble when the short knocker has no option.

Short hitters can get longer if they want.  If they are unable, well...

 

I was just brainstorming about course setup.  Risk/reward for long hitters, etc.  Sorry if it was just stupid.  Stupid. Stupid...to those who have everything figured out. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, EmperorPenguin said:

Even more stupid was the US Open at Pinehurst with no rough at all.

One guy at -9 and two at -1. Why is that bad?

 

2 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

 

Bombers like Bryson, Rory, Brooks and Dustin are thinking, If it goes in the rough I have a chance I might get a decent lie, but if not I can wedge it to the green.  It's only 5 inches tall.  They have no fear.  10-12" rough will make them think twice.

 

Interesting, the idea of wider fairways to temp their egoes.  However, that will still give them more opportunities to gamble when the short knocker has no option.

Are you volunteering your course for this event? Would you want to play there while they grow this 12” plus rough? Do you want to play there after while the have to slowly cut the rough back down? 
Anyone can make a course “difficult” if all you want is a higher score. But your foot long rough, call it the Subway Open,  is even worse than the I95 Opens played at Shinnecock.

[OrangeGravy]

10 hours ago, bladehunter said:

I’m not down on Bryson.  I actually like a lot of his new ways.  His swing is by far the most common sense approach to the golf swing.    Wolff , he’s not grown on my yet.  But I have no reason other than he’s a kid and I really am not a fan.  Probably my lack of experience at being a kid.  Not talking age I’m talking the care free attitude.   But that’s a personal feeling.  
 

anyway.  I’ve seen Bryson hit some 40-60 yard hooks this week that are OB in any course that isn’t built with side by side holes.  And I get it. That fine. He’s getting away with it. But doesn’t mean it’s good for the game really.  And by that I mean this. For several years I’ve advocated for bifurcation..... and most disagree with that. Yet ..... they are a fan of this type golf being played even though it further divides the pro game from the am game in terms of ideals and appearances.   So in my eyes you guys don’t want bifurcation in rules, but are perfectly ok with it in practice . We’re watching driver PW on par 5s on a us open. You can’t find that on the shortest muni on earth.      So how far apart do you want to see the games grow without actually labeling it bifurcation?    I guess I just don’t understand how one idea is frowned on and the reality is loved.  

Preach Brother Blade. The bifurcation thing is pure Ego/denial that it already happened when the Pro V and big head driver showed up. Ego is the wanting and thinking that we can play the same equipment. Denial is denial. The canned response is "Golf is the only game that ams and pros can play the same equipment and courses" even though the tour equipment, while some is available, has been different for a long time. The gap between the way the game is played between the 2 is getting larger every day. 

[James the Hogan Fan]

4 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

 

Bombers like Bryson, Rory, Brooks and Dustin are thinking, If it goes in the rough I have a chance I might get a decent lie, but if not I can wedge it to the green.  It's only 5 inches tall.  They have no fear.  10-12" rough will make them think twice.

 

Interesting, the idea of wider fairways to temp their egoes.  However, that will still give them more opportunities to gamble when the short knocker has no option.

 

That's the trick isn't it?

 

Take a 425 yard par 4. Hit a 330 yard drive and you have 95± yards in. If you hit the fairway, great! Flip wedge. If you hit the rough and the lie is good, yay, flip wedge. If the lie is bad, it means either a) flip wedge on the green but maybe not to birdie range, or b) hack to 25 yards, and a 50/50 shot at an up and down.

 

And some version of that for every par 4 from 350-500 yards. Because 500-330=170, which is pitching wedge or 9 iron for these guys. 

 

When I play my home course from the senior tees I am faced with a lot of similar outcomes. It's fun because it's easy, but it tends to be kind of boring, and that's to play. It's harder to watch, and that's not a knock on Bryson, but a knock on professional golf as a whole right now.

 

Ps. I absolutely abhor in-course out of bounds. But on the other hand, shots 30-40-50 yards offline SHOULD be nothing more than a hack out to the fairway at best. Not on trampled down grass with line of site relief from a grandstand.

[Dave230]

The rough and greens stopped 90% of the players from scoring well. Just to remind you that +10 got you a top 25 finish. 7 players that made the cut finished +20 or worse. Tiger Woods finished +10 after 2 days, Champ and Stenson +11, Poulter +12, Mickelson +13, Spieth +14, Garcia +15, McDowell +16, Sung Kang +20.

 

So it did largely work - also if you look at the final round, DeChambeau was the only player to play it under par and played it 3 under. It was a historically great round by Bryson, I don't think he plays like that every week. But how good he was from the rough is concerned for the game, a mixture of brute strength and single length irons probably helped.

 

Shorter courses with natural breaks with trees/streams running through at 320 yards is probably the best way to combat the long ball. Designers think that really long courses will level the field and make it more difficult as nobody will be able to reach par 5s etc but there is no such thing as a course too long for the modern player these days.

 

If you look at the last major won by a short player, it was Zach Johnson at St Andrews. Bombers have also won at St Andrews over the years but because it's short it also gives Zach Johnson-type players a chance because they're going to be given a lot of 120-yard short irons and wedges. And Zach Johnson from 100 yards is often better than DeChambeau from 50 yards. 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Dave230

[3whacker]

for those suggesting absurd heights in rough shows you know little about agronomy, with the exception of native heather fields found in the British Isles, growing rough 12 inches is a difficult proposition, especially on a course that you dont own. No private club wants the rough that long because its not only aesthetically unpleasing to the eye, but that deep of rough is like telling your superintendent to let weeds grow, because native Bermuda will never reach that height, Mother Nature will see to that

 

Changing a course that may be used once in a year is more difficult than you think, when the USGA comes in and takes over the maintenance for a course for a major event, would takes months not days, and members then become reluctant in hosting the events

[bladehunter]

The real topic here is what happens in 10 years when the “Bryson babies “ show up in droves and half the field does this?  You’re waiting on every muni par 4 for 20 minutes as “ baby Bryson “ waits for the green to clear.  Then you wait for him to find his ball etc.  lol. Should be interesting.  

Edited September 21, 2020 by bladehunter

[MtlJeff]

There are a few options here where you get down to it, if watching pros be awesome is that bothersome

 

1) Set up courses so ridiculous and long that they barely resemble anything a mortal would play 

2) Change equipment for pros

3) Change equipment for everyone

4) Just accept that these guys are amazing and don't jump off a bridge if someone shoots -6 in a US open or -25 in a regular event

 

1 and 2 present problems because they would be constantly shifting baselines, If you change the ball when do you change it again? Do you keep changing it every 10 years? If courses need to be 8500yds eventually there are issues with land. etc. 

 

Number 3 risks making golf less enjoyable in a sport where numbers have already gone down the last 20 years.

 

I'm going with 4. Just let these guys shoot -30. I don't care anymore. They are awesome. Let them be awesome

 

[driveandputtmachine]

Fairways being hit has NEVER been a stat that helped my scoring.  I am 44, and it has never helped my score.

 

My fairways being hit type of stat is hitting within the tree line.  I am steep with the irons and rough has never really changed my score other than maybe a few par 5's where I go to hit a longer type iron into a green with no ability to run a ball up to the green.

 

Saying fairways and greens is anything needed since the Davis Love and Fred Couples era(where they were the bombers) has not been a thing other than maybe the US Open.  Then Tiger came in with the ability to be steep with the short irons and even just before him it wasn't a huge thing.  

 

Getting as close to the green as possible is the thing, and hitting good approach shots.  That is the name of the game.

[cardia10]

I think long rough is very overplayed as many grasses, other than locating your ball, isn't very wiry or doesn't quite grab your club. Winged Foot looked to have long rough, but players were hitting greens from 200 yards out from the rough. I think different types of grasses could be much more effective than length. Ever played Valhalla? rough wasn't overly long, but the consistency changed your thought process from 150 yards and out.

[Hawkeye77]

10 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

Even more stupid was the US Open at Pinehurst with no rough at all.

 

A course restored to its historical roots? Yep, you'd have people playing Pinehurst with 12 inch grass rough and literally ruin the course. Which is the stupid idea?

 

Weather and USGA letting the course get too dry and some silly pin positions.  

 

Nothing to do with this bomb and gouge argument, and Kaymer closed with two very exceptional rounds.   

[Hawkeye77]

36 minutes ago, driveandputtmachine said:

Fairways being hit has NEVER been a stat that helped my scoring.  I am 44, and it has never helped my score.

 

My fairways being hit type of stat is hitting within the tree line.  I am steep with the irons and rough has never really changed my score other than maybe a few par 5's where I go to hit a longer type iron into a green with no ability to run a ball up to the green.

 

Saying fairways and greens is anything needed since the Davis Love and Fred Couples era(where they were the bombers) has not been a thing other than maybe the US Open.  Then Tiger came in with the ability to be steep with the short irons and even just before him it wasn't a huge thing.  

 

Getting as close to the green as possible is the thing, and hitting good approach shots.  That is the name of the game.

 

Maybe it's the "name of the game" lately, but no - in the time of Love and Couples accurate driving and fairways and greens were important, along with a lot of other skills.  You've identified two guys who could hit it long, but couldn't win majors and didn't win as much as many think they did which disproves your mistaken assertion.

[driveandputtmachine]

34 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Maybe it's the "name of the game" lately, but no - in the time of Love and Couples accurate driving and fairways and greens were important, along with a lot of other skills.  You've identified two guys who could hit it long, but couldn't win majors and didn't win as much as many think they did which disproves your mistaken assertion.

So I since 2000 it has been the name of the game, I think everyone agrees longer players win more and score better.   Sure you had a Funk or Toms sneak in a win here or there or maybe do well in the scoring average, but by in large since the late 90's the top ten in scoring, 7+ of them were top 50 distance off the tee.

 

It started in the 90's, just like I said.  I mentioned Couples and Love for the Era of time, I should have been more clear and said the 90's instead of naming two guys.

 

Looking at the list of major winners since 1991 - 2000.   The short straightish hitters I see are.....Tom Kite, Langer, Pavin, Elkington, Leonard, O'meara.   Jose was crooked and short, Payne was on the longer side, as was Daly, Norman, Price, Els, Singh.  Finchy, Jones, Lehman, Lawrie, were on the longer side.  Janzen(maybe shortish).   So it started shifting in the 90's.

 

Low key Nick Price may have very well been the best driver of the golf ball ever(him or Norman) as far as length and in the fairway, they hit it long and stayed in the top 50 of driving accuracy during their prime.

 

2000	Vijay Singh	Tiger Woods	Tiger Woods	Tiger Woods
1999	Jose Maria Olazabal	Payne Stewart	Paul Lawrie	Tiger Woods
1998	Mark O'Meara	Lee Janzen	Mark O'Meara	Vijay Singh
1997	Tiger Woods	Ernie Els	Justin Leonard	Davis Love III
1996	Nick Faldo	Steve Jones	Tom Lehman	Mark Brooks
1995	Ben Crenshaw	Corey Pavin	John Daly	Steve Elkington
1994	Jose Maria Olazabal	Ernie Els	Nick Price	Nick Price
1993	Bernhard Langer	Lee Janzen	Greg Norman	Paul Azinger
1992	Fred Couples	Tom Kite	Nick Faldo	Nick Price
1991	Ian Woosnam	Payne Stewart	Ian Baker-Finch	John Daly

 

It started in the 90's, whether you want to believe it or not.  1995 was the only year that the top 6 scoring average guys all were in the top 100 driving accuracy.

 

In 1991, the scoring leaders were

Corey Pavin - 17th accuracy

Bruce Lietzke - 9th accuracy

Jay Don Blake - 114th accuracy

Fred Couples - 119th accuracy

Dan Pohl - 138th accuracy

 

In 1992 the scoring leaders were

Fred Couples - 136th in accuracy

Nick Price - 16th

Steve Elkington - 71st

John Cook - 104

Tom Kite - 36

Love III - 110

 

In 1993 the scoring leaders were  (Price and Norman in their heyday were quite possibly two of the best ever with accuracy and length

Norman - 33

Price - 35

Morgan - 16

Frost - 103

Kite - 59

Stewart - 83

 

In 1994 the scoring leaders were

Norman - 43

Estes - 42

Roberts - 23

McCumber - 28

Mickleson - 155

Lehman - 69

Couples - 172

Edited September 21, 2020 by driveandputtmachine

[golfandfishing]

I’m surprised only one post so far mentions this, but the size of the driver head is what is fueling distance. Tour players do not fear a mishit any longer. They can hit it anywhere on the face and produce a shot that flies relatively far and in a playable direction. The fear of a snap hook that goes 125 yards and hard left or the heel cut that finds the right rough at 230 is basically non existent. The driver heads allow them to swing as hard as they can at every driver, there is zero chance of mishitting it. This has influenced their practice habits as well, they train for power and speed in the gym because the benefits are superior, giving them the physical ability to produce club head and ball speed never before seen. You can grow rough to a foot (not actually possible in most cases), firm up greens to concrete or hide pins 1 foot from the edge behind a deep bunker, guys will still bash it off the tee because they cannot mishit a driver now. The ball doesn’t need to be rolled back, the driver needs to be scaled down if you want to combat distance. The fear of a go nowhere miss needs to be reinstalled, this will cut 10 or 15 mph off the bombers clubhead speed. They can still swing that fast if they want to, but the penalty is the mishit shows up in the ball flight. Most of the talk about precision has focused on the result - we seem to want to penalize with high rough or whatever at 350 yards for not being precise. The way to scale back distance is to make the emphasis on precision in the swing itself. Find a happy place in driver size and limit the CC’s so that a miss of 1/2 inch off center is a bad miss again. Driver used to be a difficult club to hit, a guy had some fear that if he was going to bash it, there was a chance he would hit a smotherducksnorter. That just doesn’t exist now, give these guys some demons to deal with mentally. 

[driveandputtmachine]

Now I will say it has gotten tougher and tougher for the short guys (a la Funk or Toms) to even compete anymore.  Sure in the early 2000's they still got some wins, had some good scoring averages, but the tide had already shifted and the top 10 in scoring at least 7 of them were top 50 in distance.

 

To say this is a new issue is absurd.  The USGA and R&A both should've seen this coming, since it started in the 90's.  No longer was shot making the thing it was.  The longer players picked up a huge advantage with Giant Drivers/Fitting/the ball.  It made the need to play a game like Toms or Funk had played no longer a necessity.  Guys could take it over doglegs, and if it got into the rough still hack it out on the green and get the ball to stop.  All the while Funk was back in the fairway trying to carve a 6 or 7 iron into the flag from hitting a nice draw into the heart of the dogleg.  Sure the drivers made a big impact, fittings made a big impact, and the ball made a big impact.  You put them all together and you get where we are now and have been since Tiger, and it started before him.

 

The ball with large drivers and fittings made high launch and low spin off the driver a thing.  Trees that were in the way of Small driver, balata ball players were not in the way of drivers launching at 12 degrees or higher with no spin.