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

[Kilo1545]

If the course was only going to be used for PGA Tour events, then yeah make it 8000+ yards, the fairways 5 yards wide, grow the rough to 12", put water or OB on every hole, and put trees everywhere.

 

It's like everyone's forgetting that regular people play the bulk of the rounds on the majority of courses.  I mean, I'm a decent golfer with plenty of length, but I'd like to play courses that don't kick the crap out of me every time I hit a golf ball 2 yards offline or require Driver/3-Iron on every Par-4.

[ScubaSteve]

3 hours ago, Kilo1545 said:

If the course was only going to be used for PGA Tour events, then yeah make it 8000+ yards, the fairways 5 yards wide, grow the rough to 12", put water or OB on every hole, and put trees everywhere.

 

It's like everyone's forgetting that regular people play the bulk of the rounds on the majority of courses.  I mean, I'm a decent golfer with plenty of length, but I'd like to play courses that don't kick the crap out of me every time I hit a golf ball 2 yards offline or require Driver/3-Iron on every Par-4.

 

My buddies and I were just talking about this yesterday. How to mitigate the bomb and gouge style that makes it too easy to hit it long into the rough and wedge it on the green like we saw at Winged Foot.  Some of the redesign ideas in this thread could maybe be applied to a "rota" of championship courses where the cost of making the changes would be offset by the course hosting a major championship every 5-7 years, but for your average PGA course where it may be played by you and I, or even for non-PGA courses that want to make some similar changes, we came up with a couple things that wouldn't cost much and could be adapted for the situation, who was playing the course (PGA versus Joe Blow) etc.

 

1. Bunkers should be a hazard. They shouldn't be something that a PGA pro wants to land in so they can easily spin a shot to 3 feet for the up and down. Similar to what Jack did at Memorial several years ago, the bunkers should not be smooth silky sand. Use a rougher texture of sand - maybe tougher to hit out of, ball plugs more etc. Even without changing out the sand you could use the wide tined rakes that leaves big furrows in the sand (like Jack did) - your lie is a luck of the draw and maybe your ball settles into a furrow.  Easy to do without adding a whole lost of cost to the course but can make the bunkers a hazard rather than not.

 

2. Change courses so that it's not as easy to run the ball up from out of the rough. For most of the bomb and gouge that happened at Winged Foot they weren't flying the ball onto the green from the rough, they were running it up the front of the green. For a rota of PGA championship courses they could make these modifications by adding bunkers, reshaping greens etc. For a normal course not wanting to incur costs (including normal PGA courses) this could be achieved by letting the fairway grass grow taller (lets' call it rough..) in front of the greens so the ball can't be run up. When the tournament is over they could cut it back down to normal fairway height for the rest of us amateurs. No real cost of disruption to the course and they can manipulate it as necessary when they want.

 

These were the first two "easy" ways we came up with on how to increase the difficulty of courses without incurring significant costs to the course. Let's get'r done.....

 

 

[mahonie]

3 hours ago, oikos1 said:

Not this again.  Of course the modern breed take poorly to the older equipment.  They haven't grown up playing older equipment.  Do you seriously think the top golfers in the world today would suck with persimmon and balata had they grown up playing thousands upon thousands of swings with persimmon and balata?

 

I posted that video purely to show that equipment does make a difference and yes I recognise that it’s a Callaway promotional and they are obviously selling the latest and greatest but I didn’t expect there to be that much differential. 

 

Today’s top golfers wouldn’t suck with balata and persimmon, but they wouldn’t be overpowering golf courses either.

[jons1]

To put it in perspective, after 4 rounds of golf only 1 player was under par, and it was single digits.  So bomb and wedge may leave a chalky taste in your mouth, but you still have to get the ball in the hole.

 

You don't like the approach... change the ball... otherwise adapt, get stronger, get more flexible, and do the same thing.

[= RowdyRoddy =]

Great googily moogily.  The issue is not about scoring, or how the game is played.   It is about the logistics and costs of the game....the health and future of the game..  It is about scale.  In the past, that wasn't so much of an issue. But it has become one now.  We just need a shorter ball.  The long hitters will still be the long hitters.. You can shorten the long courses.. and short courses become relevant again...  new courses will be smaller footprint.. costs are lower to buy land, to build the course, to maintain and staff... and that means costs to golfers are lower in the end... the time to play is shorter as you have to travel less distance  over a round of golf.  I can likely come up with a few other things if I put my mind to it.   I say this as someone who  has worked in the industry since 1992.  ..in greenskeeping...  and then into the professional program.  I have seen and made budgets for golf operations, and the greens depts.   Everything I am reading about cutting grass at all kinds of heights and areas,  and planting trees, and all kinds of extreme measures is just going to piss golfers of every level off, as well as your greens super. and head pro. LOL  You will have costs for all of this as well.    

    It is simple... and no costs to the golfer to implement really...  the manufacturers will have to adjust for a shorter ball.   We just play the same way except everything is just compressed a bit. A shorter ball is such a simple remedy to the distance issue it is a no brainer. 

[Long_Left]

Winged foot made the fairways impossible to hit for everyone and the greens receptive to low spinning balls and run ups AND played long. Game over, closest to the pin off the tee has a huge advantage.

 

Haven't read the entire thread, many tangents in there... I don't understand the urge to make courses longer to combat longer players. Make them shorter and punish missing the green/make the green harder to hold. Bunkers have been preferred by the Tour players for as long as I've been playing (early 90s) over heavy green side rough. Minimize available spin inside 100 yards and the "gouge" part becomes exponentially harder. Especially on a track that has a smaller target. I saw so many shots from the rough land 15 yards short of the green and finish pin high, just don't mow a collar in front of 9 and it becomes a different hole from 180 out, everyone in the field could get to 75 yards in 2 shots, but with rough short and no possibility of stopping a 175 shot from the rough that landed on the surface you have either a brilliant 180 yard shot from the fairway (properly rewarding length and accuracy) or a layup and wedge contest.

 

I saw a US Open at a famous location that doesn't have the potential for an unplayable lie anywhere in play, spotters finding golf balls everywhere, holes laid out down and back (certainly can't change this now), and one penalty area... of course you're going to bomb the hell out of it if you have half a brain. Those greens averaged 6500ish square feet if my memory serves and they were receptive to shorter clubs, spinning or not. Weather will dictate course conditions sometimes, get over it but they chose to play it softer than they could have.

 

Setting a course up to make rough deeper at 350 is like making Michael Jordan wear heavier shoes, it's a non-starter. I have been a bomber since day 1 of golf in 1992, it was more appealing to my 20 year old brain. When I lucked out and found a Tour Balata or Tour Professional out there I did everything in my power to hold onto it because the options on the short game were endless in comparison to the Top Flite and Pinnacle rocks I could afford. Today's balls do both, today's courses (and the changes to older courses) do little to impair the ability to spin the ball greenside, and these guys are magicians.

 

Roll backs aren't taken well by anyone, plus you're fighting the clubs being bigger and hotter across the face, a ball designed to go long when hit hard and spin like crazy when hit with an iron, data available to athletes who will choose skills to maximize, and counter-intuitive course setup which eliminates the shorter players before the first ball is struck. If you want the shorter hitters back in the mix, reward the 120-180 from the fairway and penalize the 15 yard flip. Reed illustrated this perfectly, leading thru 2 days because he got lucky and got up and down from everywhere... the luck ran out on Saturday (or the conditions kicked in) and he sank faster than me after my 6th beer. But Bryson was still able to hit a 150 yard moon shot from the rough with no spin and find the surface by letting them trundle on. The run up areas are needed because the course was so long so the guys 150 yards back had a chance.

 

At a US Open, assuming no adverse weather, is it hard to make a green firm enough so a ball coming in at half normal spin is going to miss the surface most of the time? This is a 100% honest question, I'm not a grass guy. I just know that chipping from the rough is a run out, and chipping from a clean lie I can make it check.

[Ben Berube]

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?

Wow I love this idea and never even considered it.  Also heard ideas about shortening ends of wairways while removing approach areas so the green is an island.  

Either way this past weekend was a great event and they did everything right.  Plenty of other guys bomb it and even Wolf out drove Dechumpo more often than not.  What really mattered was Dechumpos putter.  He sand some serious putts and even on the roids held his composure.  

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, = RowdyRoddy = said:

Great googily moogily.  The issue is not about scoring, or how the game is played.   It is about the logistics and costs of the game....the health and future of the game..  It is about scale.  In the past, that wasn't so much of an issue. But it has become one now.  We just need a shorter ball.  The long hitters will still be the long hitters.. You can shorten the long courses.. and short courses become relevant again...  new courses will be smaller footprint.. costs are lower to buy land, to build the course, to maintain and staff... and that means costs to golfers are lower in the end... the time to play is shorter as you have to travel less distance  over a round of golf.  I can likely come up with a few other things if I put my mind to it.   I say this as someone who  has worked in the industry since 1992.  ..in greenskeeping...  and then into the professional program.  I have seen and made budgets for golf operations, and the greens depts.   Everything I am reading about cutting grass at all kinds of heights and areas,  and planting trees, and all kinds of extreme measures is just going to piss golfers of every level off, as well as your greens super. and head pro. LOL  You will have costs for all of this as well.    

    It is simple... and no costs to the golfer to implement really...  the manufacturers will have to adjust for a shorter ball.   We just play the same way except everything is just compressed a bit. A shorter ball is such a simple remedy to the distance issue it is a no brainer. 

 

But this bifurcates the game since the average amateur certainly doesn’t want a roll back. At what level do you roll it back, anyway? Mini tours? National amateur champs?

 

SHORTEN THE TEE. 3/4” max. Gets rid of these ridiculous 460cc clubs and 300 plus carries. Still rewards length and accuracy but proportionally. Could do it next week. 

[Smoothest Noonan]

Add more angles... more trees block approach angles 

[Kilo1545]

32 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

SHORTEN THE TEE. 3/4” max. Gets rid of these ridiculous 460cc clubs and 300 plus carries. Still rewards length and accuracy but proportionally. Could do it next week. 

That's actually a brilliantly simple solution.  During the Payne's Valley match, they kept talking about how Thomas had a 4" tee so he could "tee it up as high as possible and really get it out there."

 

The downside is on some courses, a 3/4" tee wouldn't stay stable enough in the soft dirt or get the ball up above the tall grass on the tee box.  Not everyone's a country club guy.  Some of us grew up eating baloney(sic) sandwiches like Bryson DeChambeau.  ?  

[Smoothest Noonan]

Manufacturers want to make money... you take away their ability to innovate and eventually you have profit problem. How many companies want to get into making wooden baseball bats? Not many... no way to differentiate.

 

length is not the problem; design is... punish players with architecture. Narrow landing areas, add bunkers, add trees. Force shot shaping. 
 

as far as I am concerned there is a material limit... just let manufacturer’s find it. Unobtainium does not exist

[Johnnypenso]

IMO bunkers are not really hazards anymore and, in fact, are beneficial in many circumstances like bailing out your errant 3 wood approach to a par 5. An option that could be tried would be rough grass bunkers, both greenside and in the fairway.  They could be somewhat unkempt, full of fescue or similar tall grass or just a somewhat unkempt area. It's much harder to put any spin on a ball to a close flag position out of a deep grass than it is out of sand in most situations.  Additionally, balls will bounce erratically out of these bunkers, perhaps into ponds or nearby water hazards, 40 yards back of the green etc.

[EmperorPenguin]

For the naysayers who are suggesting that foot-long rough is unnecessary, I ask: has there ever been a tournament with foot-long rough before?  So bad that if the ball is in such rough it is a lost shot?

[Nels55]

3 hours ago, vmcollier said:

Manufacturers want to make money... you take away their ability to innovate and eventually you have profit problem. How many companies want to get into making wooden baseball bats? Not many... no way to differentiate.

 

length is not the problem; design is... punish players with architecture. Narrow landing areas, add bunkers, add trees. Force shot shaping. 
 

as far as I am concerned there is a material limit... just let manufacturer’s find it. Unobtainium does not exist

The ball is already restricted and changing the spec would not have an adverse effect on manufacturers other then the cost of redesign.  They would probably realize some big sales during the change over and then they would have years of marketing new innovations to improve the design for the new spec.  I am not in favor of rolling the ball back but that would be the easiest way to make the tour pros play courses as they were designed to be played.

[Pomps]

Hitting it long is a skill. Why is it any more or less of a skill than hitting it straight? If someone played super conservative golf and hit it 200 off the tee and found every fairway vs 340 and rough, is that better golf just because it’s fairway? The purpose is get it in the hole in a few of strokes, not how you do it (within the rules).  If the best strategy to get it in the hole is through distance and it works, isn’t that person the best golfer because they employed the best combination of strategy and execution? 
 

 

.

 

[milesgiles]

7 hours ago, Pomps said:

Hitting it long is a skill. Why is it any more or less of a skill than hitting it straight? If someone played super conservative golf and hit it 200 off the tee and found every fairway vs 340 and rough, is that better golf just because it’s fairway? The purpose is get it in the hole in a few of strokes, not how you do it (within the rules).  If the best strategy to get it in the hole is through distance and it works, isn’t that person the best golfer because they employed the best combination of strategy and execution? 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Not the issue read the thread 

Edited September 24, 2020 by milesgiles

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, Nels55 said:

The ball is already restricted and changing the spec would not have an adverse effect on manufacturers other then the cost of redesign.  They would probably realize some big sales during the change over and then they would have years of marketing new innovations to improve the design for the new spec.  I am not in favor of rolling the ball back but that would be the easiest way to make the tour pros play courses as they were designed to be played.

 

Its not the easiest way. Changing the tee is the easiest way 

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

For the naysayers who are suggesting that foot-long rough is unnecessary, I ask: has there ever been a tournament with foot-long rough before?  So bad that if the ball is in such rough it is a lost shot?

 

Yes, obviously. Many years at the Open. 

 

There are spotters on every hole of every tournament though, so you have to be off the planet to have any chance of losing it regardless.

[milesgiles]

9 hours ago, Kilo1545 said:

That's actually a brilliantly simple solution.  During the Payne's Valley match, they kept talking about how Thomas had a 4" tee so he could "tee it up as high as possible and really get it out there."

 

The downside is on some courses, a 3/4" tee wouldn't stay stable enough in the soft dirt or get the ball up above the tall grass on the tee box.  Not everyone's a country club guy.  Some of us grew up eating baloney(sic) sandwiches like Bryson DeChambeau.  ?  

 

I play a very modestly ranked public course and there is no issue there. Castle tees work nicely 

[freowho]

The long hitters have shown how one dimensional a lot of courses are. The fairway "bunker" to dictate play works on a bouncy course like the British links but only comes into play for a small minority of players on most courses. It's a pity with the lack of crowds during Covid they couldn't organise a tournament at Pine Valley. Completely sand down the sides of and across fairways. Not much running the ball onto the green. Many architects hate the use of trees and shrubs as "hazards" and they make it harder to grow grass but I think they have their place if positioned smartly. Something that makes missing the fairway a penalty, particularly in the Melbourne sandbelt , but on many Australian courses is that instead of rough it is often a waste area. Just not watered or manicured or raked like a bunker. Missing the green is often the same with the sprinklers watering the green and edges and anything else that's green is a bonus. Similar to Pinehurst the last time it hosted the US Open. 

[smashdn]

14 hours ago, EmperorPenguin said:

For the naysayers who are suggesting that foot-long rough is unnecessary, I ask: has there ever been a tournament with foot-long rough before?  So bad that if the ball is in such rough it is a lost shot?

 

Not likely.  But if that becomes the case, why not just move the competition to a driving range and forgo actually losing the ball?  If it goes beyond the confines you drop a shot.  Then you can just have them hit to a target of the length that they would have left after their drive.  From there decide whether they need to chip or could putt and then have them move to a standard green and engage in the putting and chipping contest to determine the winner.

[smashdn]

4 hours ago, freowho said:

The long hitters have shown how one dimensional a lot of courses are. The fairway "bunker" to dictate play works on a bouncy course like the British links but only comes into play for a small minority of players on most courses. It's a pity with the lack of crowds during Covid they couldn't organise a tournament at Pine Valley. Completely sand down the sides of and across fairways. Not much running the ball onto the green. Many architects hate the use of trees and shrubs as "hazards" and they make it harder to grow grass but I think they have their place if positioned smartly. Something that makes missing the fairway a penalty, particularly in the Melbourne sandbelt , but on many Australian courses is that instead of rough it is often a waste area. Just not watered or manicured or raked like a bunker. Missing the green is often the same with the sprinklers watering the green and edges and anything else that's green is a bonus. Similar to Pinehurst the last time it hosted the US Open. 

 

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and wish it were the case.  Pinehurst in 2014 is sort of an example of that.  Kaymer went wire to wire and won at nine under.  Cut was +5 in a US Open set up.

 

I don't think the pros in the most recent president's cup found royal melbourne that difficult either.

 

I am afraid that course design and course set up is no longer the answer unless you do something super drastic.  At that point you are trading bifurcating the rules for bifurcating the courses.

 

Harbour Town seems to keep the long hitters in check but that place looks claustrophobic on some holes.  While that set up is fine for one event a year I don't think you'd see the Pros accepting of a full slate of Harbour Towns.

[Barfolomew]

It's not the long hitters fault he has more club head speed, in fact its more dangerous to hit it further as far as control is concerned.  And you want to penalize them more then a short knocker for what reason?  Cause they shouldn't be better so bring them down a notch?

 

That's like putting weights in basketball players shoes because they jump too high and it's not fair to the guys who can't sky!!!

[RobertBaron]

10 hours ago, milesgiles said:

 

Its not the easiest way. Changing the tee is the easiest way 

Changing the tee box? Or tee height regulation?

[Rosco1216]

This isn’t rocket science yet the powers that be are completely dumbfounded. Add fairway bunkers or fescue on a hand full of holes that are out there 325-350 carry. On other holes bottle neck the fairways a bit 325-350. Put a number of pins in the front in locations that would be similar to being short sided with a long drive off the tee where it would be extremely difficult to get the ball to stop close from the rough and with a partial wedge. Stop making courses longer and just trouble such as bunkers/fescue/bottle necks into the the areas the long hitters will fly the ball to. Set up pin locations accordingly and there ya go. You’ve made it more difficult for the long guys without making it exponentially more difficult for the shorter and average hitters. 

If the long players want to risk bombing it and leaving themselves with a partial wedge shot from a fairway bunker to a pin that’s 4 paces on with more trouble short, have at it. If not, they will force them to take less off the tee and play back to where the “normal” guys hit it.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Rosco1216

[Shilgy]

31 minutes ago, Rosco1216 said:

This isn’t rocket science yet the powers that be are completely dumbfounded. Add fairway bunkers or fescue on a hand full of holes that are out there 325-350 carry. On other holes bottle neck the fairways a bit 325-350. Put a number of pins in the front in locations that would be similar to being short sided with a long drive off the tee where it would be extremely difficult to get the ball to stop close from the rough and with a partial wedge. Stop making courses longer and just trouble such as bunkers/fescue/bottle necks into the the areas the long hitters will fly the ball to. Set up pin locations accordingly and there ya go. You’ve made it more difficult for the long guys without making it exponentially more difficult for the shorter and average hitters. 

If the long players want to risk bombing it and leaving themselves with a partial wedge shot from a fairway bunker to a pin that’s 4 paces on with more trouble short, have at it. If not, they will force them to take less off the tee and play back to where the “normal” guys hit it.

Why do you just want to penalize long hitters? Why not make the greens bumpy to penalize good putters? Or sometimes squeeze the fairway from 250-300 and wide open from there. Make them hit it further like the “normal” long guys do. Fair is fair is it not? 

[Rosco1216]

7 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Why do you just want to penalize long hitters? Why not make the greens bumpy to penalize good putters? Or sometimes squeeze the fairway from 250-300 and wide open from there. Make them hit it further like the “normal” long guys do. Fair is fair is it not? 

Well since this topic is about what setups would make it harder for the bomb and gouge, I’m simply stating what can be done if setups want to combat against it.

[Shilgy]

3 minutes ago, Rosco1216 said:

Well since this topic is about what setups would make it harder for the bomb and gouge, I’m simply stating what can be done if setups want to combat against it.

True nuff. 
edited to add...much of the consternation for the ruling bodies is it seems virtually every player of note is long as determined by the rest of us. 290-295 AVERAGE is long. Short of the b word, bifurcation, which I hope never ever happens to the golf world there is little that can be done without bastardizing the game with a tricked up course prep.

Adding trees is a non starter as most clubs are removing trees not adding them. Improved turf conditions benefit. Adding rough in front of the green would probably harm the long players less than than it would harm the shorter player. So that is out. Adding bunkers in front is even worse because the members of said club would never be for it. 
Just like Tiger Proofing any changes are probably more of a penalty for the shorter guy. Maybe they can invent a ball that just drops when it gets to 300 yards. Problem solved! ?

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Shilgy

[milesgiles]

1 hour ago, Rosco1216 said:

Well since this topic is about what setups would make it harder for the bomb and gouge, I’m simply stating what can be done if setups want to combat against it.

 

Arbritrary and unfair. Ridiculous 

[QuigleyDU]

The way to combat bomb and gauge is to make courses shorter. Think about it....