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

[Sean2]

Not sure what the answer is. Bryson played bomb and gouge in a US Open and not only got a way with it, but excelled at it. 

[NRJyzr]

23 hours ago, caniac6 said:

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

 

It's not really that, it's MOI that's causing the issue.  MOI restricts the curve in shots, and combined with the very large driver clubheads, allows them to go after it as they all do (for the most part) in the modern game.

 

20+ years ago, when I was starting the game, it was commonly mentioned that new golfers should use a 3w as their primary tee club, because the added loft made the fly straighter.  These days, I can't even count how many times I hear announcers mention when a player goes to his fairway wood that he's doing so to be able to better move the ball laterally.  It's a dichotomy, one borne of MOI.

 

Remember when the SLDR was new?  Most pros wouldn't use it, because it wasn't as accurate.  MOI again.  It shows you don't even need to reduce the driver head size to get something that adds more uncertainty to the tee game.

 

Just cut down the driver MOI for the pros, cap it a lot lower than we see used on Tour now, it'll fix what many are complaining about.

 

I couldn't care less about the club number someone's using on their second shots.  You can call your 33* club an 8 iron, or whatever the h*ll you want, but it's still a 33* club.  Loft still drives distance. 

 

The distance being generated now isn't all that different from Ye Olde Days, when you account for swingspeed differences.

 

I also like @ThinkingPlus's idea of making the greens slower, maybe shaggier.  How many guys complain about putting on poa?  LOL

 

Lot of guys are pointing at the ball, but it's not the ball.  It's never been the ball.  Look at the ball tests done in 2000 and 2001, just after Nike and Titleist joined Bridgestone and Spalding.  There's just not that much difference.  It's the clubs.

Edited September 21, 2020 by NRJyzr

[NRJyzr]

39 minutes ago, golfandfishing said:

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. 

 

You beat me by a few minutes.  ?

[clinkinfo]

On 9/19/2020 at 7:30 PM, EmperorPenguin said:

When I started playing the game, the name of the game is fairways and greens.  This is no longer the case, as guys are just bombing it off the tee and gouging balls out of the rough with wedges.  How can we stop the insanity?  I have some ideas that can help.

 

1. For the first 270 yards the fairway will be generous: 35-40 yards wide with standard 1.75" collars and rough at 2.5" tall.

1. From 270-300 yards the fairway narrows to about 30-35 yards, with two-yard collars at 1.75" tall; graduated rough with first cut ten-yards wide and rough 3.5" tall; primary rough at 5" to 6" tall.

2. From 300-330 yards narrow the fairways to about 26 yards wide with two-yard collars at 1.75" tall; no first cut but primary rough at 5" to 6" tall.

3. From 330-400 yards the fairways are still 26 yards wide with two-yard collars at 1.75" tall; go straight to uniform, primary rough after that at 7" to 10" tall.

 

The long-hitters will always have the option to use the driver, but there will be huge risks as the ball travels farther from the tee.

 

How would you set up the course?

 

so I guess we should modify hockey sticks so the ones who can slap shot hardest don’t have an advantage?

 

i guess we should modify the football so QB’s who can throw it further than everyone else don’t have an advantage?

 

i guess we should modify baseballs so the pitchers who can throw the fastest don’t have an advantage?

 

i guess we should modify the golf ball so that the most accurate approach players have some “randomness” added into the ball so they don’t hit as many GIR and don’t have an advantage?

 

this is a sport, you work hard to gain a physical advantage.  Why is the premise that the advantage then has to be removed from the game so it’s more level for the rest of the players?

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

It's not really that, it's MOI that's causing the issue.  MOI restricts the curve in shots, and combined with the very large driver clubheads, allows them to go after it as they all do (for the most part) in the modern game.

 

20+ years ago, when I was starting the game, it was commonly mentioned that new golfers should use a 3w as their primary tee club, because the added loft made the fly straighter.  These days, I can't even count how many times I hear announcers mention when a player goes to his fairway wood that he's doing so to be able to better move the ball laterally.  It's a dichotomy, one borne of MOI.

 

Remember when the SLDR was new?  Most pros wouldn't use it, because it wasn't as accurate.  MOI again.  It shows you don't even need to reduce the driver head size to get something that adds more uncertainty to the tee game.

 

Just cut down the driver MOI for the pros, cap it a lot lower than we see used on Tour now, it'll fix what many are complaining about.

 

I also like @ThinkingPlus's idea of making the greens slower, maybe shaggier.  How many guys complain about putting on poa?  LOL

Just to be clear, I hate my idea, but I believe it would work because IMO smooth fast greens are the genesis of bomb and gouge.  Bomb and gouge is more optimal because saving par is easier with fast, smooth greens when you miss the green or leave yourself a really long 2-putt.  If the greens are stimped at 7 and bumpy, you won't make near as many putts outside of 3' and will also consequently 3-putt more often.  That tilts the statistical balance back to fairways being more important because you hit more GIRs (even from a little further out) even though proximity, on average, may suffer a bit.

[Quayle]

Jack has it right. It isn't about pro golfers being "too long".  The issue is (a) old courses that are no longer in the running for pro events, and (2) the land,  construction and maintenance costs of building new courses that give the pro players and pro game any sort of an interesting result. And even if you do build longer courses for the pros, you have to make them "gettable" to the average golfer so that you get enough regular, weekly play to cover costs.

 

I think the point is that the equipment needs to be changed. Not because Bryson shouldn't win, but because that was one boring US Open, in my view, and The Foot looked uninteresting and too predictable for the first time.

[clinkinfo]

10 minutes ago, Quayle said:

Jack has it right. It isn't about pro golfers being "too long".  The issue is (a) old courses that are no longer in the running for pro events, and (2) the land,  construction and maintenance costs of building new courses that give the pro players and pro game any sort of an interesting result. And even if you do build longer courses for the pros, you have to make them "gettable" to the average golfer so that you get enough regular, weekly play to cover costs.

 

I think the point is that the equipment needs to be changed. Not because Bryson shouldn't win, but because that was one boring US Open, in my view, and The Foot looked uninteresting and too predictable for the first time.

 

but making courses longer is just playing into the bomb and gouge advantage.  You’re actually making it harder for shorter players on tour to compete.  Courses don’t need to be longer, they just need to be setup to penalize misses.   Many times, they don’t seem to be.  Bunkers should be HAZARDS not perfectly raked luxury zones.  Rough should be deep, not irrelevant.   Hazards and boundaries need to be setup to make a long hitter think.  Course managers should be learning as we go this year too, next year those areas won’t be available to land in anymore, at least not as easily. 

 

example, take a drivable par 4. You put a hazard or out of bounds behind it and suddenly those long drivers have to make a risk/reward decision.  Put OB  Down the side of a short hole and suddenly, they have to think about the miss.   Right now, most courses aren’t setup like that IMO.  
 

but maybe like my prior posting, these are just athletes being athletes.  Maybe this is all OK for the game.  Maybe it’s just the change we all get afraid of.  Jack had his time and it’s done.  It’s a new generation’s game to define.   

[Quayle]

6 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

Jack had his time and it’s done.  It’s a new generation’s game to define.   

 

I think Jack was speaking not as a former player, but as an architect, when he talked about the problems of making courses longer and longer.

 

[TT2017]

 

Buy a tin of paint and paint a line each side of the fairway X yards into the rough. Cross the line and have a shot added to the score. Play it as it lies.

 

No bifurcation, no equipment changes, no course re-design, no extra costs at all other than a couple of dollars of paint.

 

Simples!

 

p.s.

 

It will be 'special' patented golf paint, that I will hold the IP to, so it might not be that inexpensive!

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by TT2017

[MtlJeff]

10 minutes ago, clinkinfo said:

 

but making courses longer is just playing into the bomb and gouge advantage.  You’re actually making it harder for shorter players on tour to compete.  Courses don’t need to be longer, they just need to be setup to penalize misses.   Many times, they don’t seem to be.  Bunkers should be HAZARDS not perfectly raked luxury zones.  Rough should be deep, not irrelevant.   Hazards and boundaries need to be setup to make a long hitter think.  Course managers should be learning as we go this year too, next year those areas won’t be available to land in anymore, at least not as easily. 

 

example, take a drivable par 4. You put a hazard or out of bounds behind it and suddenly those long drivers have to make a risk/reward decision.  Put OB  Down the side of a short hole and suddenly, they have to think about the miss.   Right now, most courses aren’t setup like that IMO.  
 

but maybe like my prior posting, these are just athletes being athletes.  Maybe this is all OK for the game.  Maybe it’s just the change we all get afraid of.  Jack had his time and it’s done.  It’s a new generation’s game to define.   

 

I agree with you mostly but i just wonder if guys are just too good now, that short of putting lions and bears out on the course, nothing will really slow them down. Bryson didn't seem to care too much about hitting wedges out of US open rough. So to challenge guys like that the course would have to be 8500yds, which would force him to hit 7 irons out of the rough which is much harder. This is not a feasible solution plus as you say it would force guys like Zach Johnson to retire and just make it more likely Bryson wins. That solution is more about doctoring the winning score into what you want

 

Creating real hazards like water... is very expensive and also not really feasible. You'd have to be digging ponds on like half the holes out there. 

 

Maybe we just have to throw our hands up and say these guys are amazing and marvel at how they shoot -30. 

[Titleist99]

15 hours ago, Golf10 said:

 

To be fair a lot of us have been calling for bifurcation for decades.  Iron skills should be reintroduced to the pro game.  I'd go with 15% rollback for pros to start.  No reason a major venue needs to be over 7,000 yards.

You're right .....they should get rid of the 230+ par three, change a few of those long par 4s into drivable par 4s, shorten some of the long par 5s and that would put any course at 7000- yards....Oh, and by the way....get rid of this trend of removing trees and add a few in strategic places.....but I digress....IMO

[clinkinfo]

1 minute ago, Quayle said:

 

I think Jack was speaking not as a former player, but as an architect, when he talked about the problems of making courses longer and longer.

 

 

I have nothing but respect for him and all he’s accomplished and done for the game.   Don’t get me wrong.   But sometimes, all that experience can form opinions that can cloud the analysis of the current state of the game.  This is a game style he really didn’t play.   I don’t know that long hitting is the death of golf like some others and needs to be stopped at all costs.  I tend to see it like I listed above, it’s a competitive advantage that athletes are working hard to create.  
 

Let’s talk about an elephant in the room.  everyone keeps pointing to driver heads, the ball, and other equipment advances as the reason for all this distance.  But everyone is ignoring that these players are working their rear ends off in the gym!  None of the players of Jacks era were gym rats, with nutritionists and trainers.  And even if there were a couple, they probably didn’t have enough knowledge to be as effective as training of today,   These players are training way harder, they are way more fit, and way more powerful from all the work.
 

 I don’t believe in professional sports that reducing the advantage of physically working hard to be fitter and stronger than your opponents should be eliminated from the game.  

[clinkinfo]

2 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I agree with you mostly but i just wonder if guys are just too good now, that short of putting lions and bears out on the course, nothing will really slow them down. Bryson didn't seem to care too much about hitting wedges out of US open rough. So to challenge guys like that the course would have to be 8500yds, which would force him to hit 7 irons out of the rough which is much harder. This is not a feasible solution plus as you say it would force guys like Zach Johnson to retire and just make it more likely Bryson wins. That solution is more about doctoring the winning score into what you want

 

Creating real hazards like water... is very expensive and also not really feasible. You'd have to be digging ponds on like half the holes out there. 

 

Maybe we just have to throw our hands up and say these guys are amazing and marvel at how they shoot -30. 

 

bushes are cheap.  Trees are cheap.  I hear you, but I think it’s reasonable and cost effective to add features like those in specific areas to make decisions much much harder.   But let’s be honest, the designers and managers of these courses are seeing many of these lines players are taking for the first time like us.  I’m confident they will place some stuff in the way for next year.

[NRJyzr]

44 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Just to be clear, I hate my idea, but I believe it would work because IMO smooth fast greens are the genesis of bomb and gouge.  Bomb and gouge is more optimal because saving par is easier with fast, smooth greens when you miss the green or leave yourself a really long 2-putt.  If the greens are stimped at 7 and bumpy, you won't make near as many putts outside of 3' and will also consequently 3-putt more often.  That tilts the statistical balance back to fairways being more important because you hit more GIRs (even from a little further out) even though proximity, on average, may suffer a bit.

 

I'm not fond of the bumpy idea, either, but I think the slower greens aspect is worth exploring.  These guys take a while to adapt when they encounter that, the Open Championship being a notable example of that.  ?

[The Pearl]

30 minutes ago, Quayle said:

Jack has it right. It isn't about pro golfers being "too long".  The issue is (a) old courses that are no longer in the running for pro events, and (2) the land,  construction and maintenance costs of building new courses that give the pro players and pro game any sort of an interesting result. And even if you do build longer courses for the pros, you have to make them "gettable" to the average golfer so that you get enough regular, weekly play to cover costs.

 

I think the point is that the equipment needs to be changed. Not because Bryson shouldn't win, but because that was one boring US Open, in my view, and The Foot looked uninteresting and too predictable for the first time.

Jack is simply wrong here.  It sounds smart because Jack is considered an "expert", but is simply not what is happening. A classic "appeal to authority" problem. 

 

A.  What courses are no longer in the running for "pro events"?  Perhaps at a regular tour event, but not for majors.  Pebble Beach, Oakmont, and Winged Foot hosted the 82, 83, & 84 US Opens.

 

B.  The trend in "new" courses being built are either private or for the "Traveling/Resort Golfer".   

 

C.  A huge factor in "regular tour" stops is not the course, but rather the room and logistics needed for all the ancillary space needed for sponsors, media, tour vans, etc.

 

D. As far as building a "tour" course and making it playable for the "average" golfer, that is a complete red herring. Any of the top architects in the game can easily accomplish this goal.  

[Titleist99]

8 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I agree with you mostly but i just wonder if guys are just too good now, that short of putting lions and bears out on the course, nothing will really slow them down. Bryson didn't seem to care too much about hitting wedges out of US open rough. So to challenge guys like that the course would have to be 8500yds, which would force him to hit 7 irons out of the rough which is much harder. This is not a feasible solution plus as you say it would force guys like Zach Johnson to retire and just make it more likely Bryson wins. That solution is more about doctoring the winning score into what you want

 

Creating real hazards like water... is very expensive and also not really feasible. You'd have to be digging ponds on like half the holes out there. 

 

Maybe we just have to throw our hands up and say these guys are amazing and marvel at how they shoot -30. 

I'm not a rocket scientist but if at one golf course there's a score of -30 and another has a tournament that only one player breaks par, logic would dictate that it's all in the setup...... that's where we should concentrate our efforts to combat the long hitters. But then again scores on the PGATOUR is right where they want them....IMO

[Nard_S]

Tiger won the Masters last year because he respected the wind at Amen Corner and the others did not. The Open with wind is still the best venue to showcase the game. Wind is a grossly under appreciated hazard in the game these days. Balata did not fly straight because in great part it was not a very aerodynamic design.  The way the mass was distributed internally also added to the chaos so Pro gear used more loft control ball flight and full command of shot shaping was a must. It starts with the ball and it's not so much the distance, it's aerodynamics and spin issues. Tour Ball is a good place to start.

[MtlJeff]

15 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I'm not a rocket scientist but if at one golf course there's a score of -30 and another has a tournament that only one player breaks par, logic would dictate that it's all in the setup...... that's where we should concentrate our efforts to combat the long hitters. But then again scores on the PGATOUR is right where they want them....IMO

 

I agree setup obviously matters a great deal. But it would be very hard to turn every course on the PGA rotation into Winged Foot and/or Oakmont. Some courses that lack the design and layout challenges would need to really bastardize the course to get it to produce those kinds of results

 

My home course is tough (75/140 ~) but no land to add distance and our main 18 doesn't have a ton of natural hazards. If you wanted pros to shoot +2 for a tournament there you'd have to have a guy  named rocco break their legs on the first tee, or simply not even have fairways

 

But as i mentioned also, i'm fine with the scoring. I don't mind seeing +4 win a tournament, or -25

Edited September 21, 2020 by MtlJeff

[Titleist99]

4 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

I agree setup obviously matters a great deal. But it would be very hard to turn every course on the PGA rotation into Winged Foot and/or Oakmont. Some courses that lack the design and layout challenges would need to really bastardize the course to get it to produce those kinds of results

 

My home course is tough (75/140 ~) but no land to add distance and our main 18 doesn't have a ton of natural hazards. If you wanted pros to shoot +2 for a tournament there you'd have to have a guy  named rocco break their legs on the first tee, or simply not even have fairways

 

But as i mentioned also, i'm fine with the scoring. I don't mind seeing +4 win a tournament, or -25

Never implies that they should make every course like Wing Foot but somewhere in the middle would be nice.....let the game evolve...

[3whacker]

one other factor about thick rough, it brings an errant shot to an immediate stop, if the rough is uneven or even nonexistent an offline shot has the possibility of going so far offline that there is no shot back to the hole..Winged Foot had no gallery, maybe with a gallery Harris English finds his ball, maybe JS finds his ball. ANGC has very little rough , but an errant shot offline is severely penalized

[Golf10]

50 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

You're right .....they should get rid of the 230+ par three, change a few of those long par 4s into drivable par 4s, shorten some of the long par 5s and that would put any course at 7000- yards....Oh, and by the way....get rid of this trend of removing trees and add a few in strategic places.....but I digress....IMO

 

No worries mate.  Dial back the ball 20% and the architecture is relevant again.  Winged Foot is way short for current ball technology.  They had to trick it up to make it hard.

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, clinkinfo said:

 

so I guess we should modify hockey sticks so the ones who can slap shot hardest don’t have an advantage?

 

i guess we should modify the football so QB’s who can throw it further than everyone else don’t have an advantage?

 

i guess we should modify baseballs so the pitchers who can throw the fastest don’t have an advantage?

 

i guess we should modify the golf ball so that the most accurate approach players have some “randomness” added into the ball so they don’t hit as many GIR and don’t have an advantage?

 

this is a sport, you work hard to gain a physical advantage.  Why is the premise that the advantage then has to be removed from the game so it’s more level for the rest of the players?

Because this is a more nostalgia kind of game. I guess people want to play the game that their father and grandfather played, they don't want it to evolve like other sports....hopefully we have someone running the game (USGA & RA) that will let the game evolve.

[Nels55]

I think that the longest straightest players should win and I don't care if the short straight hitter cannot compete anymore (not the case but seems to be part of the argument).  I also believe that the bomb and gouge approach is interesting, exciting and is 'growing the game'.  Something like home runs in baseball.  Bryson is someone who a casual sports fan can enjoy watching.  I feel that young guys going out and destroying old classic course by hitting the ball really far is great and is generating interest in the game.  So lets quit worrying about trying to stop Bryson or Wolff from winning and just let it go.  LOL nobody tried to change the track surface to slow Usain Bolt down and give other runners a chance...

[clinkinfo]

53 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

Because this is a more nostalgia kind of game. I guess people want to play the game that their father and grandfather played, they don't want it to evolve like other sports....hopefully we have someone running the game (USGA & RA) that will let the game evolve.

 

I think your right, but I also think it has to do with athleticism.  There’s no way that jack’s age of golfers were athletes in the way they are now.  They didn’t train, they didn’t eat right, they didn’t approach the sport as an elite athlete.  Tiger came on the scene and was one of the first to really manage the sport and his role as an athlete.  Everyone started playing for 2nd place.  People took notice and at first everyone wanted courses to be “Tiger proofed”, otherwise it wasn’t fair.  But in the end, I think it became obvious it was the opposite, if you wanted to compete you also had to take your role as an athlete seriously and train.  And that’s what has happened.
 

 We have tons of athletes now ripping courses apart.  But in the end, that COULD have been the same thing 20 years ago, it was just not being done by the folks playing because the predominant logic was bulk would destroy a golf swing.  I’m old enough to remember the announcers giving tiger crap because he was too muscular and they believed it ruined his game.  It was a different belief back then, and it was probably not entirely correct.   
 

Trying to regulate a game to take away completely the advantage athletes work to create makes little sense.   Keep courses so that they reward good shots and penalize bad ones.   Right now, they are hitting the ball in places that superintendents have never considered.  So there’s no risk/reward penalty because no one ever thought through protecting those areas with design elements.  That’s what’s not correct, there’s no penalty in these long areas for missing, so it’s super easy to be long and not-accurate right now, there’s no downside.  
 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by clinkinfo

[RSinSG]

Others have mentioned it and I concur - make the pro and his caddy find their own ball. No marshals with little flags to start with. It will be hard to do with a gallery but it would for sure make hitting into deep rough risky. 

[The Pearl]

2 minutes ago, RSinSG said:

Others have mentioned it and I concur - make the pro and his caddy find their own ball. No marshals with little flags to start with. It will be hard to do with a gallery but it would for sure make hitting into deep rough risky. 

Horrible idea.  The unintended consequences would be absurd, not to mention completely ridiculous when galleries are let back in..

[disco111]

3 hours ago, Titleist99 said:

Because this is a more nostalgia kind of game. I guess people want to play the game that their father and grandfather played, they don't want it to evolve like other sports....hopefully we have someone running the game (USGA & RA) that will let the game evolve.

Golf has always evolved, but the difference between golf and other sports is that the equipment is/has been the dominant focal point. 

[Kilo1545]

6 minutes ago, The Pearl said:

Horrible idea.  The unintended consequences would be absurd, not to mention completely ridiculous when galleries are let back in..

It would slow down pace of play big time.  On the plus side, it would allow Patrick Reed the opportunity to play any ball he finds if it's in a better lie than his own.

[The Pearl]

3 minutes ago, Kilo1545 said:

It would slow down pace of play big time.  On the plus side, it would allow Patrick Reed the opportunity to play any ball he finds if it's in a better lie than his own.

 

I would make a small wager you would see 6 hour U.S. Open rounds.

[Kilo1545]

1 minute ago, The Pearl said:

 

I would make a small wager you would see 6 hour U.S. Open rounds.

And I would not take said small wager.  ?