We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Course setup to reign in bomb and gouge

Honestly I don't understand the need or want to try and shut a players game down. Or prove that they aren't better than the course. If you want to implement a standard than do so. But a basketball court is one size. A football field the same. Baseball you will get a different configuration and that's fine. But enough of the... They're Ruining the GAME! It's what Athletes do. And why we watch and why they get paid. Sure it can be fun to watch them look mortal every once in a while but to just try to make it so they can't play their game is petty. Bryson has worked his ass off to get where he is. And sure he won this week but DJ won Fed EX and Morikawa won at Harding Park. Enjoy the evolution of the game. The work that players are putting in to be able to beat the course and set records. It's what the game is for. Competition, Evolution. If not go back to WOODS and get rid of technology. Trying to set up the course to stop a style of play is just cheating... lol
 
The problem is, anything they do doesn't just affect the players they're targeting, it affects everybody else as well. Course or equipment, everybody has to play the same conditions.
 
2ezGolf said:
Honestly I don't understand the need or want to try and shut a players game down. Or prove that they aren't better than the course. If you want to implement a standard than do so. But a basketball court is one size. A football field the same. Baseball you will get a different configuration and that's fine. But enough of the... They're Ruining the GAME! It's what Athletes do. And why we watch and why they get paid. Sure it can be fun to watch them look mortal every once in a while but to just try to make it so they can't play their game is petty. Bryson has worked his ass off to get where he is. And sure he won this week but DJ won Fed EX and Morikawa won at Harding Park. Enjoy the evolution of the game. The work that players are putting in to be able to beat the course and set records. It's what the game is for. Competition, Evolution. If not go back to WOODS and get rid of technology. Trying to set up the course to stop a style of play is just cheating... lol
Click to expand...
Stop making sense while I’m outraged, thank you.
 
2ezGolf said:
Honestly I don't understand the need or want to try and shut a players game down. Or prove that they aren't better than the course. If you want to implement a standard than do so. But a basketball court is one size. A football field the same. Baseball you will get a different configuration and that's fine. But enough of the... They're Ruining the GAME! It's what Athletes do. And why we watch and why they get paid. Sure it can be fun to watch them look mortal every once in a while but to just try to make it so they can't play their game is petty. Bryson has worked his ass off to get where he is. And sure he won this week but DJ won Fed EX and Morikawa won at Harding Park. Enjoy the evolution of the game. The work that players are putting in to be able to beat the course and set records. It's what the game is for. Competition, Evolution. If not go back to WOODS and get rid of technology. Trying to set up the course to stop a style of play is just cheating... lol
Click to expand...
You cant compare golf course needs to that of a BB court or football field. Not at all apples to apples. Getting those 10 yrds for a first down is as hard as it always was (especially if your a Jets fan:confused2:).
Except for the rules which have given more advantage nowadays to the offense vs years ago. But thats not the playing field doing that but is the rules changes.

In golf, the courses have always done things to combat the talent of the times. Mostly via lengthening. And its been done to keep with the equipment and or the players abilities (of the times). Augusta has grown about 750 yards through the years. Can you imagine Augusta having never moved from 6700 yrds to the 7450ish of today?
You can imo actually play a 6700 yrd pro events and still pose a challenge to the tour but you would have to then move and or create new hazards, change the rough situation, force layups, etc, etc.....
Basically you'd have to change the layout so that the course at the 6700 presents enough integrity to challenge the tour. But what they did and is what most courses have done is simply add length.
Without adding length (which is a form of adding integrity to combat players abilities) or (in lieu of that) creating more challenging layouts to combat the players length abilities or a combo of either , the tour would be a joke. Holes and courses would hold little to no integrity. They would become obsolete. It wouldn't be much fun watching. And it would have reached that point a long time ago.

The only reason your still enjoying watching is the very same thing you are suggesting they shouldn't do. You cannot allow the players to get better than the courses integrity. The fact that there is still some is why your still watching and enjoying. That is actually all part of what you refer to as "competition evolution".
Your entire argument is contradicting towards the results you want to maintain. Be careful what you wish for. Because had your logic been followed through the past 75 years and they hadnt made courses longer and harder to combat the players and equipment you wouldnt at all be watching fun, exciting, enjoyable golf anymore. The courses and too many holes would hold little integrity if at all and been incredibly easy for these players. The very thing your wishing they dont do is the very same reason your still enjoying watching.
 
rollin said:
You cant compare golf course needs to that of a BB court or football field. Not at all apples to apples. Getting those 10 yrds for a first down is as hard as it always was (especially if your a Jets fan:confused2:).
Click to expand...
You're fun! lol. I said You can't try to stop one style of play. And trying to is not ok. I also listed at least 3 different champions this year and they all have a different style. My point isn't to not make a more challenging course. It's to not be mad at someone's style or choice as to how they play the game. I was reading a book. I think the Zen of Golf. He mentioned being at a practice round with Tiger and they were studying a Par 5 that was trying to force a lay up with a bad angle that would leave you 100 plus yd shot to a tricky green. Tiger looked at it and said he would play his second shot purposely to miss the green to a patch of rough that he knew he could make an easy up and down with a short chip and short putt. Scrambling.... choosing to scramble has long been a part of the game. Lengthen the course if you wish because players hit longer. Ok. That's fine. But to be upset because they made the course difficult the same way they always do and the guy you don't like still wins.... By being the only one to shoot under par. That's what the argument is. If you want to make it an accuracy game. Make everything outside of the fairway OB. Make it boring so you can't see the best in the world do what they do. That's the point. Don't be mad because someone can do something you can't. Enjoy the fact that he has worked hard to develop a game that can beat the course.
 
2ezGolf said:
You're fun! lol. I said You can't try to stop one style of play. And trying to is not ok. I also listed at least 3 different champions this year and they all have a different style. My point isn't to not make a more challenging course. It's to not be mad at someone's style or choice as to how they play the game. I was reading a book. I think the Zen of Golf. He mentioned being at a practice round with Tiger and they were studying a Par 5 that was trying to force a lay up with a bad angle that would leave you 100 plus yd shot to a tricky green. Tiger looked at it and said he would play his second shot purposely to miss the green to a patch of rough that he knew he could make an easy up and down with a short chip and short putt. Scrambling.... choosing to scramble has long been a part of the game. Lengthen the course if you wish because players hit longer. Ok. That's fine. But to be upset because they made the course difficult the same way they always do and the guy you don't like still wins.... By being the only one to shoot under par. That's what the argument is. If you want to make it an accuracy game. Make everything outside of the fairway OB. Make it boring so you can't see the best in the world do what they do. That's the point. Don't be mad because someone can do something you can't. Enjoy the fact that he has worked hard to develop a game that can beat the course.
Click to expand...
I personally could care less who won and have no issue at all with Bryson. My only input is to comment on the ideology that they are always looking to and always have done things to the courses through the years in order to keep holes integrity relevant (difficulty wise). I actually feel the constant lengthening (which has been the most dominating changes of all) is actually backfiring because all its done imo is lead to a less broad field and one that is more looong distanced based vs anything else. I mean make something longer to combat a long hitter and all you really did was play to that players strength and also making it too difficult for the others. Eventually its a cvatch-22 where they keep getting longer and longer courses and the the field gets more and more one sided towards longer players.

But its beginning to get to the place where they would need to lengthen things again yet another step. How long can they keep doing that is what i question. So imo the best answer is to do things that force "some" more precise golfing and not necessarily longer golf.
 
rollin said:
But its beginning to get to the place where they would need to lengthen things again yet another step. How long can they keep doing that is what i question. So imo the best answer is to do things that force "some" more precise golfing and not necessarily longer golf.
Click to expand...
The problem is you're looking for an even playing field. That will never happen. The elite are just that. ELITE... You can't cater to the field. You don't want parity. You want the elite. And lengthening now will cater to the best players on tour and spur on the next generation of amazing golfers. And if you truly want to encourage target golf then you need to create penalty strokes for missing fairways. Get rid of ball spotters. Make the player find the ball like I have to. That will up the scores. lol Honestly on a side note the number one thing I can't stand is not being able to find a ball that was clearly in play because I don't have a spotter and my depth perception is terrible and then having to take a penalty because I can't find said ball. lol. Anyway... I enjoyed this conversation and agree with you and disagree with you! :)
 
Those very large grips that Bryson is using, and how he grips the club, were both a huge factor coming out of that thick rough at Winged Foot.

I didn't hear any of the commentators mentioning this.
 
I agree that tailoring courses to counter bombers is an unfair thing to do, but one thing I like about golf is that certain venues fit certain playstyles better than others. Bombers will always have an advantage, but as an example they have a much bigger advantage at Bethpage Black than at Harbor Town. In recent years, major championship setups (especially the US open and PGA Championship) have played very bomber friendly setups (long, narrow fairways, thick rough). Augusta has always rewarded length, and so in recent years, and so the majors have (IMO) disproportionately favored length. I'm interested to see how The Ocean Course plays next year as I think it will neutralize long hitters a fair bit. I expect Torrey Pines to once again be a bombers paradise.

Also, FWIW even the most bomber friendly setups require you to be accurate. Bryson despite hitting 41% of fairways hit more fairways than the field average - and most of the fairways he missed were not missed by much. This is a trend among the best overall drivers on tour - when they miss they aren't missing by much. You can't even make it on tour consistently missing fairways by 20+ yards into the trees or worse. I don't think people realize just how bloody hard it is to hit even half the fairways while averaging 300+.
 
2ezGolf said:
The problem is you're looking for an even playing field. That will never happen. The elite are just that. ELITE... You can't cater to the field. You don't want parity. You want the elite. And lengthening now will cater to the best players on tour and spur on the next generation of amazing golfers. And if you truly want to encourage target golf then you need to create penalty strokes for missing fairways. Get rid of ball spotters. Make the player find the ball like I have to. That will up the scores. lol Honestly on a side note the number one thing I can't stand is not being able to find a ball that was clearly in play because I don't have a spotter and my depth perception is terrible and then having to take a penalty because I can't find said ball. lol. Anyway... I enjoyed this conversation and agree with you and disagree with you! :)
Click to expand...
Conversation and also even debate is what forums are for. Its all good imo.
I agree completely with the "find your ball" thing. We dont have the luxury of having our ball found before we even leave our tee box.

Im not looking for an even playing field. Im suggesting there would be a broader one. Different types of players vs what may now already grown to be a tad one sided. There may be a whole bunch of great golf to view from great players who just couldn't quite cut it because of being a bit too short for the current top competitors. But thats due in part imo not so much the players but because of the constant lengthening of holes instead of using other means to better accomplish what it is they been trying to do. And that imo has lead to the field being geared more towards long. Imo there would always be 'some" elite players vs the rest no matter what. We would also every now and then always have that next greatest player of any given era too.
 
2ezGolf said:
The problem is you're looking for an even playing field. That will never happen....
Click to expand...
It's part of the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality. If somebody is better at something than other people, something must be done about it. We can't have anybody better at something than anybody else, because that's not "fair". My response? "Fair" is where you take your pig to win a ribbon.
 
Snowman said:
It's part of the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality. If somebody is better at something than other people, something must be done about it. We can't have anybody better at something than anybody else, because that's not "fair". My response? "Fair" is where you take your pig to win a ribbon.
Click to expand...
I don't believe in that ideology at all. And where does any that fit in anyway? I mean the lengthening of courses throughout the years has never really been about any one person but was always about equipment and abilities making the holes gradually become obsolete in a difficultly sense for too many the pros, not just one.

I ask again,.....just how great would tour golf be if the very "longest" courses on the tour were maxed at 6800 vs that nowadays being about the shortest vs the 7200 to 7400 where most sit and even the 7500ish that a number sit today?

Reigning in B&G is not at all about a player nor any idea of everyone gets a trophy but is the same ideology as the lengthening of courses has been throughout the years of golf. Its about keeping the integrity of golf holes distances and layouts that is needed to offer a level of difficultness for the tour as in the past. Thats why its done.

My only issue is that I personally feel (for many reasons) the continuous lengthening is not the only nor the most correct avenue to keep the integrity of holes and courses relevant. Other things can be done instead. But if nothing is ever done at all then I refer back to my question or notion above again. The tour wouldnt be so good to watch if most holes integrity had never changed through the years. So its not at all about any "everyone wins" ideology (at least not from myself) i do not agree with that ideology.
 
Last edited:
greenOak said:
I agree that tailoring courses to counter bombers is an unfair thing to do, but one thing I like about golf is that certain venues fit certain playstyles better than others. Bombers will always have an advantage, but as an example they have a much bigger advantage at Bethpage Black than at Harbor Town. In recent years, major championship setups (especially the US open and PGA Championship) have played very bomber friendly setups (long, narrow fairways, thick rough). Augusta has always rewarded length, and so in recent years, and so the majors have (IMO) disproportionately favored length. I'm interested to see how The Ocean Course plays next year as I think it will neutralize long hitters a fair bit. I expect Torrey Pines to once again be a bombers paradise.

Also, FWIW even the most bomber friendly setups require you to be accurate. Bryson despite hitting 41% of fairways hit more fairways than the field average - and most of the fairways he missed were not missed by much. This is a trend among the best overall drivers on tour - when they miss they aren't missing by much. You can't even make it on tour consistently missing fairways by 20+ yards into the trees or worse. I don't think people realize just how bloody hard it is to hit even half the fairways while averaging 300+.
Click to expand...
Alot of what you say there i agree with.

The problem with the unfairness you mention is that so far (via the constant lengthening of holes) its actually worked to favor longer hitters. That unfairness you speak of already exists as it sits upon the players who are not as long than it ever dos the ones they are trying to counter. The bomber countering method (constant lengthening) has imo by default backfired in that sense. Many folks talk of it not being fair to the bombers if doing things to help prevent some of it but in reality its the non bombers which things havnt been fair too for some time. If you want to bomb proof golf holes, you dont make them longer........ you make them far less receptive to the bomb and even sometimes eliminate the option.

Longer players who are equally skilled as anyone else in all other areas of play will always have an advantage and that is just fine . In fact any player who is better at any one part of the game while all else falls equal will also always have an advantage and that is fine too.
There is always exceptions and nothing is ever 100%. But in general by making holes longer and longer it has by default been catering to longer hitters and therefore a more one sided type of player field has gradually developed. And such top players from the pool of longer hitters have better odds making it to the tour and also then competing at the top of it. So the unfairness has actually been existing already and sits among the players of lessor length because the sport has catered more to the longer ones.

Im not suggesting a player who hits 250 max should be sitting atop the tour. I mean being a pro should require good length. But just perhaps its time where as instead of yet again lengthening things only to further this catch-22 result, they instead work things back the other way and allow the different player types a more fair chance to compete and do so at the top level. The longer players who are equal at everything else vs the shorter ones will still have an advantage anyway. They are still longer , can still use shorter clubs , and will still be able to showcase and utilize their length ability on more than a fair share of holes. But in the end holes and courses will remain relevant and hold their integrity. And there will be great golf from a broader field of different player types. And contrary to what some believe there will still always be a select elite best sitting atop regardless and even also occasionally that real special one or two greatest of them all who come along now and then.
 
Last edited:
Grow the rough very high and get rid of people who go looking for it with little flags. Make the players find their own damn ball. A few lost balls later they would dial it back a bit.
 
How about just leaving the courses alone the way they are, and let things play out. I think Bryson is good for golf as it gives the fans a dominating player possibly, sort of like tiger woods was. He will not dominate like tiger, but he is sort of that character for the present time. Enjoy the ride.
 
Plenty of good suggestions on how to reign it in already mentioned and a few gimmicky head scratchers too. No need to repeat the ideas, good or o_O. The real issue IMO is why not how. Let the cream rise to the top. Elite champions find ways successfully use the best tools in their own tool boxes to beat others with different tool boxes all the time. They also find ways to sharpen the duller tools in their sets or to at least mitigate the disadvantage their duller tools put them at. It's one of the truly great things about the game we love. More than any sport I can think of, golf just provides so many ways to get er done and it changes every day and with every hole and with every course. The opportunity there for all of them. Some will make more of it than others. No need to thwart one style of play over another. Let em play.
 
Daddio said:
Plenty of good suggestions on how to reign it in already mentioned and a few gimmicky head scratchers too. No need to repeat the ideas, good or o_O. The real issue IMO is why not how. Let the cream rise to the top. Elite champions find ways successfully use the best tools in their own tool boxes to beat others with different tool boxes all the time. They also find ways to sharpen the duller tools in their sets or to at least mitigate the disadvantage their duller tools put them at. It's one of the truly great things about the game we love. More than any sport I can think of, golf just provides so many ways to get er done and it changes every day and with every hole and with every course. The opportunity there for all of them. Some will make more of it than others. No need to thwart one style of play over another. Let em play.
Click to expand...



see, why worry about how someone plays? If they can, fine, if they can't, hit more fairways. Don't change the course......
 
Daddio said:
Plenty of good suggestions on how to reign it in already mentioned and a few gimmicky head scratchers too. No need to repeat the ideas, good or o_O. The real issue IMO is why not how. Let the cream rise to the top. Elite champions find ways successfully use the best tools in their own tool boxes to beat others with different tool boxes all the time. They also find ways to sharpen the duller tools in their sets or to at least mitigate the disadvantage their duller tools put them at. It's one of the truly great things about the game we love. More than any sport I can think of, golf just provides so many ways to get er done and it changes every day and with every hole and with every course. The opportunity there for all of them. Some will make more of it than others. No need to thwart one style of play over another. Let em play.
Click to expand...
Well...I have already given answer as to why. And part of that answer is in the form of a notion and question. And is the notion and question Ive asked a couple times that no one answers.
Here it is again....Just how good would the tour be today if courses stayed the same from many years ago. If the longest courses on tour were 67 to 6800 instead of 74 to 7500 (like it is today) and if no layout changes have ever been made to any the holes?

The holes and courses were losing their integrity and if stayed the same from all those decades ago instead of gradually changing they would been obsolete quite some time ago. One the main reasons we can still appreciate and like the golf we watch is because they made changes to the holes through the years. Had they followed your feelings and logic and not done it through the years just as your suggesting they dont do it now,....you wouldn't be watching the good golf you are seeing today.

My only issue with it has only been that i dont believe the constant and seemingly forever lengthening is the correct answer while a number of other things can be done instead.
 
I think that the most destructive thing happening in golf today is the lengthening of golf courses. Length does nothing but help the longest of hitters and cast out the shortest of hitters. If anything creativity is needed instead of the lazy mans solution of length. Golf courses should be shortened if anything, a par 3 do not need to be 250 yards to be exciting, a drivable par 4 is much more interesting than one that's 500 yards....a risk reward 550 par 5 is much more pivital than a 700 three shot hole.

On a side note: If the USGA & RA choose to roll back the equipment the old classic courses will never host major championships.... because of infrastructure. Stadium courses for viewing, parking, corporate hospitality and merchandise accommodations, etc....etc....will not allow it.

So, no matter how many times people say distance is the reason that the old classic are obsolete..it isn' true. IMO
 
titleist981 said:
I think that the most destructive thing happening in golf today is the lengthening of golf courses. Length does nothing but help the longest of hitters and cast out the shortest of hitters. If anything creativity is needed instead of the lazy mans solution of length. Golf courses should be shortened if anything, a par 3 do not need to be 250 yards to be exciting, a drivable par 4 is much more interesting than one that's 500 yards....a risk reward 550 par 5 is much more pivital than a 700 three shot hole.

On a side note: If the USGA & RA choose to roll back the equipment the old classic courses will never host major championships.... because of infrastructure. Stadium courses for viewing, parking, corporate hospitality and merchandise accommodations, etc....etc....will not allow it.

So, no matter how many times people say distance is the reason that the old classic are obsolete..it isn' true. IMO
Click to expand...
I agree with much of your view but then you lose me. You likely have a good point about given courses unable to play host nowadays for the reasons you mention. But the notion isnt just about old courses and is indeed very much about length or the lengthening of courses the tour plays. Like Augusta which has lengthened 750 yrds since the beginning. Courses havnt grown longer for no reason over the years. A course I agree would need to be able to accommodate a pro event but even if it was able it would also need to be long enough (as for todays standards) to even be considered worthy enough.

I agree holes can be made very tour worthy via other means besides length. And i also feel is what they should do instead of continuing with lengthening. But make no mistake the courses have gotten longer because the equipment and the abilities have gotten longer. Old courses and distances became obsolete for the same reason regardless whether or not they could accommodate a tour event anyway. That part would just been a second reason (wherever it may have applied).
 
Just a general question because I honestly don't know.... Won't the long hitters (who win every year) always have some advantage regardless of how difficult a course is off the tee?

Long hitters who are winning are only winning in part because of their tee game. They still have to possess the ability to reduce proximity to the hole on approaches, have a pro level short game, make difficult putts, hit trouble shots, etc. Without those skills, I don't think they win and I can't believe they would dominate to the point where it's some sort of problem.

So, if the course layout/setup forces less club off the tee, they would likely be in the same position as the shorter hitters, correct? If so, wouldn't their extra distance exist throughout the bag? While the shorter-hitting player is pulling a 4i for an approach, the longer-hitting player might be pulling a 6i from the same distance. If accuracy improves as clubs get shorter (again, I don't know), the longer-hitting player will always have some advantage - assuming they have pro level all-around skills.

I think pros are pros because they do everything better. If some pros are consistently better than the field, isn't it because they are doing everything a little better, not just driving the ball further?

As far as modifying courses, I agree with those who don't believe a long-hitter should be punished. But c'mon, a course has 18 holes. Why not design or set the course up with a variety - holes which punish those without distance while other holes punish those lacking precision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top