Played with sub scratch golfer yesterday

[harpo_72]

Re the bold bit...Surely you mean CR (not Slope). Slope could apply to the italicised bit though - but perhaps starting a bit higher than 5...say 10?
Or maybe the course is just a full of temptation that folk can't resist - and don't learn!

Yup your right, but the impact is the same?

 

[Backsticks]

Of course better players find golf easier, and that's exactly why the hazards should be positioned to make it harder for them rather than for mid handicappers. Golf courses shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players.

True, and as said above, the solution lies in the ball. It is so obvious that I find it maddening they dont shorten it back by 20% or so. It would solve so mant problems, and has zero negatives.

One element people miss about tge lengthened game is that it is more than just the positioning of hazards. Everyone has not gained 60 yards average on a drive. They have gained a %. So the range of distances people are hitting the ball has stretched out, distorting golf courses and magnifying the difference the pose in difficulty between low and high skill golfers. So for example, it isnt just a question of moving a bunker - the bunker needs to be lengthened to cater equally for the new dispersion of shots it is there to catch. The 180 yard drive might now be 200 - but the 270 yard drive is gone to 340.
Just shorten the damn ball back.

 

[sweaty sock]

Surely this is all taken care of by the handicap system?

If they're off plus then they are already being punished enough for being good. All those holes they have gap wedge in they need to birdie.

All the 20 handicappers with 200 yards from a fairway bunker probably still have 4 more shots to half the hole...!

 

[harpo_72]

Surely this is all taken care of by the handicap system?

If they're off plus then they are already being punished enough for being good. All those holes they have gap wedge in they need to birdie.

All the 20 handicappers with 200 yards from a fairway bunker probably still have 4 more shots to half the hole...!

Strange you say that because the pair we played said that through the summer it was the plus handicapper carrying them and was 5-6 birdies to the good in 7-9holes .. and then when the high handicapper woke up with his shots on the long but innocuous holes ( he was too short to be bothered by the fairway bunkers, so 420 yards was always 3 shots to the green) they closed out their matches.
Thankfully for us the wind levelled the field and we could get some pressure on but we were 2 down after 6holes. Then when we get past the first 7 holes it’s business as usual as the fairway bunker up the 9th was out of range into the stiff breeze plus there is room to go left of it. The 13th has a load of fairway bunkers right and left of the fairway from 190 to 230 ( so it’s set up to get the shorter hitters) I did find the bunker but my line was a little to far left and the wind was across so I got hit .. he carried them all by 40yards but he was hit by the wind as well and got it in the rough .. otherwise he would have been dropping a gap wedge in

 

[Slab]

I guess we’ve all played courses/holes where the design/hazard/forced carry, appears to only punish a certain player profile. But on reflection its not typically all 18 holes & while one hole might seem to ‘have it in for me’ I see other holes that will ‘punish’ the longer hitter, while I cant even reach whatever it is they're worried about

Certain holes at certain courses do my head in, but I guess that’s (in part) what the course designer was going for (if they’ve correctly designed a course for all abilities)
All comps I play in are off tees that mean I’m usually in for a pounding at most courses (even more so if there’s a wind) Typically comp tees will be at 6500-6700yrds and I enjoy my golf much more if I play from tees around 6000 yards

Comps I play from tees I have to, social golf I play off tees I enjoy (wind/weather dependent)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Couple things

1. The course rating is heavily impacted by hazards at 250 yards from the tee, as its where most scratch golfers carry. This is what goes a long way to determaning slope.

2. Plus golfers make up less than 1% of players in the UK. So its not really a huge distraction.

Bunker positioning…exactly why on one of our par 5s - a slight dog leg left at 2nd shot - we have taken out a bunker at 220yds off the tee on the LHS of the fairway, and put a new bunker at about 250yds on the RHS.

The bunker on the left was to protect the dog leg from typical player hitting down the left with plan to cut across the dogleg. Tree growth and change in fairway cut down the LHS of the hole now makes that line much more risky off the tee than it was, and so bunker would have been double jeopardy, plus the penalty down LHS is that for most we now have to play safe or take on a very risk blind 2nd shot. So we just took it out.

New bunker down the RHS at about 250-260yds is aimed at CR/slope as it gives the long hitter a bit of food for thought off the tee. It is not a splash bunker. Go in it and most often no chance of reaching green with 2nd, and even the better player will likely be left with a 100yd 3rd shot.

And similarly on next hole we’ve recently taken out a LHS bunker at 220yds and build two new ones at 240-260yds on same side but with the 2nd pushed into the fairway to create a narrow neck of fairway between it and trees and OOB on the RHS. Many better players choose to de risk by playing tee shot short of the neck. They are left with about 150-160yds in, but that’s a meat and drink shot to them.

 

[harpo_72]

We have black tees and they are used for the club championship, and a few other prestigious events. They only really add yardage on a few holes and for me they are okay as they take the worry out of certain holes and as a consequence I am 5 or 6 shots lower on my score. I still have a longer 2nd shot but when you stand up and know you have a huge gap to hit into and the trouble can be avoided or not reached it means a good result is highly likely. But also it pulls the problem to the longer hitters they now have these concerns and so the course then challenges them.

 

[VVega]

True, and as said above, the solution lies in the ball. It is so obvious that I find it maddening they dont shorten it back by 20% or so. It would solve so mant problems, and has zero negatives.

By this logic, the player who only hits it 200yds of the tee and is already 200yds from the green on an average par 4, would now be hitting 160 yds of the tee ? but they will be happy that a long-hitting player is now going to have the bunkers in play ?

I’d like to see how many players in your club will sign up to this proposition…

It’s been discussed on the GCA forums and by many shorter hitting pros etc ad nauseam - the longer player is the only one benefitting from getting the courses longer or the ball/equipment shorter. They will be hitting 8 irons instead of wedges into the green whereas the rest of the field will be hitting 5 irons instead of 8i.

 

[Backsticks]

By this logic, the player who only hits it 200yds of the tee and is already 200yds from the green on an average par 4, would now be hitting 160 yds of the tee ? but they will be happy that a long-hitting player is now going to have the bunkers in play ?

I’d like to see how many players in your club will sign up to this proposition…

It’s been discussed on the GCA forums and by many shorter hitting pros etc ad nauseam - the longer player is the only one benefitting from getting the courses longer or the ball/equipment shorter. They will be hitting 8 irons instead of wedges into the green whereas the rest of the field will be hitting 5 irons instead of 8i.

Not following gca forums, but would have thought the above, if they are their conclusions, to be 100% incorrect. The situation is the exact opposite :

Take the 'almost' reductio ad absurdum, where the ball was so short that the difference between the longest and shortest players' drives was only 1 yard. Then the course is effectively exactly the same for everyone, and, the long hitter effectively loses all his advantage. Not fair of course, and not advocating such a purely theoretical situation. But it does show that the shorter the ball, the lower the differential, the more the course is the same for everyone, advantaging not disadvantaging the high handicapper/shorter hitter. As well as making so many of the worlds courses play again as they were originally designed.

 

[harpo_72]

Actually the discussion about the ball losing distance by 20% is not quite correct, you currently have a very efficient ball that transfers all of the input energy .. it can be adjusted to peak out at a certain input, meaning all that extra effort is lost and they don’t get their huge yardages. It will mean then that irrespective of equipment the total distance will be about launch parameters and quality of strike .. or skill as it should be known. How that changes iron distances will be pretty much the same but that is hard to determine because they are already a mixed bag …
What you have here is a bunch of people opposing something that they don’t know enough about and it’s stalling the process of rectifying the issue. Dare I say it this is a JFDI, and let the results do the talking.

 

[DanFST]

Shall we remove holes that force a draw? Doesn't seem fair on high handicappers.

 

[VVega]

Take the 'almost' reductio ad absurdum, where the ball was so short that the difference between the longest and shortest players' drives was only 1 yard. Then the course is effectively exactly the same for everyone, and, the long hitter effectively loses all his advantage.

Here is some simple maths... the longer hitter today, let's say 300 yds is 1.5x longer than a shorter one at say 200 yds... they will never be at the differential of 1 yard, unless the shorter player hits it only 2 yds and even then the longer one hits it 3 yds, so then they will take 200 shots for the shorter and 133 shot for the longer hitter to reach the green at 400 yds.

 

[VVega]

As well as making so many of the worlds courses play again as they were originally designed.

What does it even mean? Some old courses had bunkers 40 yds of the tee, or heather that forced carry of 100 yds... should we make those in play for every player?

 

[VVega]

Actually the discussion about the ball losing distance by 20% is not quite correct, you currently have a very efficient ball that transfers all of the input energy .. it can be adjusted to peak out at a certain input, meaning all that extra effort is lost and they don’t get their huge yardages. It will mean then that irrespective of equipment the total distance will be about launch parameters and quality of strike ..

First, it transfers 82% of the energy at best (COR limit).

Second, are you suggesting that two equivalent strikes with the same launch parameters and strike location (i.e. skill by the definition above) taken at different speeds should transfer energy differently, i.e. more on the slower strike and less on a faster strike? How about then just create a rule that drives over 250 yds are not allowed - no technology changes are necessary...

 

[harpo_72]

First, it transfers 82% of the energy at best (COR limit).

Second, are you suggesting that two equivalent strikes with the same launch parameters and strike location (i.e. skill by the definition above) taken at different speeds should transfer energy differently, i.e. more on the slower strike and less on a faster strike? How about then just create a rule that drives over 250 yds are not allowed - no technology changes are necessary...

No you have not understood… the ball is efficient it delivers your 82% for a broad spectrum of impact forces and yes we now have balls for higher and lower swing speed ( I thought I would add that in just in case you thought I was unaware ) . Make it inefficient at a certain point and you get the distance reduction… then it becomes about the player being more efficient and consistent

 

[Foxholer]

Yup your right, but the impact is the same?

Which of the 2 separate statements in my post were you referring to?

 

[harpo_72]

Which of the 2 separate statements in my post were you referring to?

The handicap of the 5-15 is not low enough elsewhere and the course is thought to be easier than it really is unless your a long hitter

 

[Foxholer]

Of course better players find golf easier, and that's exactly why the hazards should be positioned to make it harder for them rather than for mid handicappers. Golf courses shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players.

As an example, if there's a 400 yard par 4 with a fairway bunker at 215 - 230 yards, a lot of Cat 1 (in old parlance) golfers, not all of course, will not be troubled by that and will hit straight over it and be left with a wedge or short iron in. A mid handicapper will likely have to lay up, leaving a 190 / 200 yard approach.

If the bunker were at 250 - 260 yards, the Cat 1 golfer lays up with a three wood / hybrid / long-iron and has to hit a more challenging approach shot. The mid handicapper isn't troubled by the bunker and has a 150 - 170 yard approach.

Golf shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be disproportionately harder for lesser players. The point of fairway bunkers is risk and reward, there's enough risk and reward on any given hole for a mid handicapper because golf is just hard, the risk and reward created by fairway bunkers should be aimed more at the better players.

Just my view on golf course design, others might think differently.

I fundamentally disagree with almost eveything in thie above post!
Golf has (and has always had) this fantastic attribute/feature called 'handicap' that (at least potentially) means that, generally/with well designed courses, all levels of golfers are 'challenged' equally! The slope of each set of tees should 'allow' for the difference between high and low handicappers abilities with regards to reachable/avoidable hazards.
The 'proper' way to equalise the challenge of any hole, at least as far as fairway bunkers is concerned, is by the positioning (and use) of tees that mean both high and low cappers have the same decision to make!
To me, the real advantage that 'better' golfers have is that they make better decisions about how best to play for any particular hole/situation!

 

[Canary_Yellow]

I fundamentally disagree with almost eveything in thie above post!
Golf has (and has always had) this fantastic attribute/feature called 'handicap' that (at least potentially) means that, generally/with well designed courses, all levels of golfers are 'challenged' equally! The slope of each set of tees should 'allow' for the difference between high and low handicappers abilities with regards to reachable/avoidable hazards.
The 'proper' way to equalise the challenge of any hole, at least as far as fairway bunkers is concerned, is by the positioning (and use) of tees that mean both high and low cappers have the same decision to make!
To me, the real advantage that 'better' golfers have is that they make better decisions about how best to play for any particular hole/situation!

Oh well, given time I’ll probably find a way to cope