Course setup to reign in bomb and gouge

[Duffer Seamus]

Where did the ball end up?

ISTR that, much to my surprise, it ended-up in decent position.

I want to say he wasn't far from the green and he put it either on the green or on the fairway near the green? I honestly don't recall the details and my DVR has already automatically deleted those games--even if I did want to go searching for it.

 

[OGputtnfool]

The scope and grandeur of that course were AWESOME. But.....those greens are pretty darn large. Huge.
I think they even made mention of this fact during the broadcast. But not that it was going to help the players. Just to make it seem like they are large and easier to 3 putt.

Seemed like they all knew where to hit it. Getting a "local" for the tournament isn't in the books, anymore. Digitally analyzed greens books.
They marvel at the "young guns" coming out and being ready, and "gee, how do they do it?"

Easier to bomb it onto large greens with funnels back to the hole. Sound familiar? Almost Augusta in reverse. Oakmont '08 seemed to be about that way, which came up in the coverage, kinda. Get these guys inside 10 feet and its almost like that stat is all that matters in the world at that point.
Who is numero uno inside 10 feet again? Some Bryson guy? So pick a venue with greens which repel so that bomb and gouge is not possible.
And where 3 putts might REALLY happen.

Smaller greens woulda done it. The trees seem to bother everyone plenty. Give them some muni sand donated from every county in the Nation and send the white fluffy stuff to the munis. Kinda like you're supposed to send in the water from your pond for the NHL zamboni to forge into home ice, but much more malevalent.

Seems newer venues with not much overall familiarity might add flavor to the mix.

With no more crowds, they can play ANYWHERE.
What's that one in New Jersey, Pine something....

Oakmont '08?

 

[blueonblack]

Oakmont '08?

Was that the year? Cabrera? I'm not a big golf historian, mostly like to play this game.

 

[OGputtnfool]

Was that the year? Cabrera? I'm not a big golf historian, mostly like to play this game.

2008 was Tiger @ Torrey.

 

[JohnSinVA]

I guess I don't understand the desire to set up a course to try and stop a certain playing style.
Just sayin'....

Not necessarily stop it, just add more risk for the reward.

 

[blueonblack]

2008 was Tiger @ Torrey.

I've taken 5 years off from the game. My points of reference are so screwed up now. Never been away from the game before.
That doesn't seem that far off now, ya know?

 

[greenOak]

For those saying Winged Foot neutralized bomb and gouge because the scores were high I disagree. Winged Foot destroyed the short accurate hitters even more so than the bombers. The actual scores people put up is irrelevant.

 

[greenOak]

Also this isn’t just about Bryson. It’s about trying to narrow the gap between long and short hitters - whether that’s a good thing to do is another conversation.

 

[greenOak]

Reign in the ball.
Oopsy, USGA.

I know you’re being facetious but this is one of the worst things you could do to counter bombers. Making courses effectively longer puts an even bigger premium on distance, and wit’s the ball going shorter it makes it easier to keep the ball out of trouble.

 

[G-Man]

I guess you have to barricade the greens... also if you are letting the rough grow, let the fairways grow too! My goodness those were harder than some cartpaths!

 

[rollin]

With all the things many of us would like to do to courses to make them more difficult in order to help tame the the bombers, we tend to forget one important thing. And that is what happens to the folks who play these courses outside of that one pro toruney all year long? Like the regular folks and masss of people in some cases? Its quite possible those same defense layouts which would offer them issues from 440 yrds will also be in play for us from our 390 yrd tees.

Ive always implied they need to start doing things instead of simply lengthening everything because all that ever truly does is end up (by default) only favoring the longer hitters of which they are tryiong to combat in the first place. Its actually counterproductive towards the goal. And it also reduces the competitive filed somewhat towards a more one sided B&G type player.

But doing things (as my first paragraph implies) may not be the answer for the course because of the other 360 days a year.

And so with that,...........here is something crazy and Ill probably get made fun of for this but here goes. How about (on some holes) you simply draw a line in the fairway and it is a rule (for the given hole/s) that if you pass this line from the tee its a penalty. I mean the idea is to just say ..."hey, we are not going to allow you to drive past the entire integrity of the hole and is the same exact principle behind the constant lengthening of holes (its really the same thing) and therefore you cant tee past this line.

 

[MattyD-MPLS]

Firmness of the greens is the only way I can think of. Week to week on tour, the greens are very receptive and it makes it easy on them.

 

[ddstanford]

As others have written, keep the fairways wider for the accurate players and make the 2nd cut of rough gnarly for those who want to bomb it. Part of the problem with Winged Foot's set-up was the fairways were so narrow, the accurate players would run into the rough anyway without the extra distance to make inaccuracy worthwhile.

 

[InTheRough]

When I saw DeChambeau's club distances and saw PW at 160 yds I just shook my head. There is no hope. Pitching wedge. That's my strong lofted cavity back high tech GI 7i on a good day. But he's hitting a PW from that distance. He's hitting a PW on the par 3 where I hit my 7i. He hits an 8i from where I hit a 21 degree hybrid (190). For comparison he hits the same hybrid 275 yds. Do you realize how much more accurate those clubs are? There is no reigning in bomb and gouge.

 

[rollin]

As others have written, keep the fairways wider for the accurate players and make the 2nd cut of rough gnarly for those who want to bomb it. Part of the problem with Winged Foot's set-up was the fairways were so narrow, the accurate players would run into the rough anyway without the extra distance to make inaccuracy worthwhile.

Good point though i think you worded the last part wrong.
But just like lengthening holes longer and longer does,...all this does again is play in favor of the longer hitters which they are trying to combat in the first place.
When will the powers that be realize they cant keep doing things that makes the game harder for everyone while they only want to try to tame the longest hitters because all that ever does is work in their favor. It backfires and is counterproductive towards the goal.
All they ever had/have to do is create forced layups . Thats all thats ever needed. They dont need to keep lengthening, they dont need to narrow, dont need to grow rough, etc....but just simply force a layup on those holes in which they dont want players to hit past the entire integrity of the holes layout.

There was never a need to make a hole that use to be 405 yrds now 460. All you ever had to do was force a layup 270 out.

 

[GenErr]

I don't see anything wrong with bomb and gouge golf. I think it is entertaining in a risk/reward kind of way.
Just my 2 cents. I'm interested in reading other peoples' opinions.

 

[BluesManDan]

Just read about the “scaled rough” approach... sounds brilliant. Just make the rough deeper as you go further down the fairway, so there’s a real risk/reward to hitting it farther vs shorter and mor accurate. It encourages shorter more accurate drives. Short 1.5” rough at 275 yds out vs 6” rough at 350 yds out and the bombers will reign it back for the real benefit of staying in the fairway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GenErr]

Good point though i think you worded the last part wrong.
But just like lengthening holes longer and longer does,...all this does again is play in favor of the longer hitters which they are trying to combat in the first place.
When will the powers that be realize they cant keep doing things that makes the game harder for everyone while they only want to try to tame the longest hitters because all that ever does is work in their favor. It backfires and is counterproductive towards the goal.
All they ever had/have to do is create forced layups . Thats all thats ever needed. They dont need to keep lengthening, they dont need to narrow, dont need to grow rough, etc....but just simply force a layup on those holes in which they dont want players to hit past the entire integrity of the holes layout

I disagree a bit. Forced layups will penalize a longer hitter, to an extent. Although that long hitter might be hitting 2 or 3 clubs less to reach the forced landing area, it gives an advantage to a golfer that isn't as long, but maybe more accurate?
The golfer with the best short game might be given an advantage over a golfer with a better long game. Is that in the spirit of the game?
I don't have an answer, but it is interesting to see the different opinions here.

 

[rollin]

I disagree a bit. Forced layups will penalize a longer hitter, to an extent. Although that long hitter might be hitting 2 or 3 clubs less to reach the forced landing area, it gives an advantage to a golfer that isn't as long, but maybe more accurate?
The golfer with the best short game might be given an advantage over a golfer with a better long game. Is that in the spirit of the game?
I don't have an answer, but it is interesting to see the different opinions here.

But isnt that the whole idea? Are they not trying to combat the ability of longer pros to hit past the integrity of the holes? Everytime they lengthen a hole they are doing so with the intended result that it will make it harder for the longer hitters. But whats happening in reality is that by doing so they are by default taking the shorter plyers out of competing atop. So its actually playing into the favor of the longer hitters. I mean just think for a moment......you make a hole longer to stop the bomber from hitting through the integrity of the holes layout. But soon as you made it longer you just made it far more difficult for the shorter pro,...or you just lessened the filed of available pros who can play it successfully enough. The longer you make things, the more the field is going to be only filled with longer hitters. Its counter productive towards the goal.

But if they force some layups it is productive towards the goal. It prvents longest players from hitting through the holes integrity and also It allows a broader field to compete. The longer hitters still hold advantage anyway because they can use shorter clubs for evrything but at least it allows many more pros to compete who may not be the B&G type and it solves their problem (or at least what they see as one) and doeas so without the constant lnegthening iof holes and courses. . We might be missing a whole lot of good golf with a broader field.

And then there can still be "some" longer holes where the longest hitters can display their gift and utilize their gift to thier advantage becuase that is also part of what makes them a pro too. But par5's and also fwiw par3's are (8holes) and enough to satisfy that.

 

[tommyhaka]

But isnt that the whole idea? Are they not trying to combat the ability of longer pros to hit past the integrity of the holes? Everytime they lengthen a hole they are doing so with the intended result that it will make it harder for the longer hitters. But whats happening in reality is that by doing so they are by default taking the shorter plyers out of competing atop. So its actually playing into the favor of the longer hitters. I mean just think for a moment......you make a hole longer to stop the bomber from hitting through the integrity of the holes layout. But soon as you made it longer you just made it far more difficult for the shorter pro,...or you just lessened the filed of available pros who can play it successfully enough. The longer you make things, the more the field is going to be only filled with longer hitters. Its counter productive towards the goal.

But if they force some layups it is productive towards the goal. It prvents longest players from hitting through the holes integrity and also It allows a broader field to compete. The longer hitters still hold advantage anyway because they can use shorter clubs for evrything but at least it allows many more pros to compete who may not be the B&G type and it solves their problem (or at least what they see as one) and doeas so without the constant lnegthening iof holes and courses. . We might be missing a whole lot of good golf with a broader field.

And then there can still be "some" longer holes where the longest hitters can display their gift and utilize their gift to thier advantage becuase that is also part of what makes them a pro too. But par5's and also fwiw par3's are (8holes) and enough to satisfy that.

Maybe what they should do is the longer you hit it the more it is a risk-reward type of shot. Narrow the fairways a bit way out there in a tapered fashion and keep them a bit wider say out to 300 yards. You can do the same with the rough, make the rough a little deeper past 300 yards then it is at say 280 to 300.

 

[rollin]

Maybe what they should do is the longer you hit it the more it is a risk-reward type of shot. Narrow the fairways a bit way out there in a tapered fashion and keep them a bit wider say out to 300 yards. You can do the same with the rough, make the rough a little deeper past 300 yards then it is at say 280 to 300.

problem with that is I believe its already been established that being closer to the green/hole is still more beneficial even when if from the rough. Sitting 270 vs 315 is a huge jump. I mean that could be 3 or 4 club difference and if the guy is a long hitter it may not even be a full swing. And is already in part why the "Bomb & Gougers" still choose that route anyway. Unless your talking about rough that is truly detrimental towards hitting out of. It would have be something along the lines of thick heavy fescue cause these guys are too good otherwise.

But as ive mentioned ..... if courses do this then what about the other 51 weeks of the year masses of people play them?

I still suggest (and I know this wont be popular and likely even be made fun of) but just draw a line at 275 and create a rule on that given hole that a tee shot cannot pass this line or its a stroke penalty. Imo its simple, its easy, and it would work towards the goal of preventing the bombers' from blasting through an entire layout. Doesnt hurt the course, dont have to lengthen the hole, don t have to grow roughs and or add hazards, etc.... and allows for a broader and larger competing field. Also would be nice imo to see almost every player on that given hole to hit tee shots to the same landing zone (placing them more precisely) and then hit approach shot from the same area.

What this would do is it would say (for the given hole) you must hit to this area first and then approach the green from here. It dictates the two shots (especially the first one) required to try to obtain a GIR on that hole. It forces a more precise and distance limited first shot. That imo could be good for golf. Its the same exact thing as folks suggesting to place fescue. ior hazard or whatever in order to make it so they lay up. Well......no need for any of it....just place a line on that hole and your done.

 

[tommyhaka]

problem with that is I believe its already been established that being closer to the green/hole is still more beneficial even when if from the rough. Sitting 270 vs 315 is a huge jump. I mean that could be 3 or 4 club difference and if the guy is a long hitter it may not even be a full swing. And is already in part why the "Bomb & Gougers" still choose that route anyway. Unless your talking about rough that is truly detrimental towards hitting out of. It would have be something along the lines of thick heavy fescue cause these guys are too good otherwise.

But as ive mentioned ..... if courses do this then what about the other 51 weeks of the year masses of people play them?

I still suggest (and I know this wont be popular and likely even be made fun of) but just draw a line at 275 and create a rule on that given hole that a tee shot cannot pass this line or its a stroke penalty. Imo its simple, its easy, and it would work towards the goal of preventing the bombers' from blasting through an entire layout. Doesnt hurt the course, dont have to lengthen the hole, don t have to grow roughs and or add hazards, etc.... and allows for a broader and larger competing field. Also would be nice imo to see almost every player on that given hole to hit tee shots to the same landing zone (placing them more precisely) and then hit approach shot from the same area.

What this would do is it would say (for the given hole) you must hit to this area first and then approach the green from here. It dictates the two shots (especially the first one) required to try to obtain a GIR on that hole. It forces a more precise and distance limited first shot. That imo could be good for golf. Its the same exact thing as folks suggesting to place fescue. ior hazard or whatever in order to make it so they lay up. Well......no need for any of it....just place a line on that hole and your done.

I can see why you would think nobody would like it, because it really changes the face of the game and makes it sort of gimmicky. I like the idea of toughening-up the golf course a bit towards the green it would be good for everybody. What about this idea, everybody show the same desire to succeed as Bryson does and adopt the same sort of swing style, and also get better physically fit? Also, you have the likes of Bubba Watson and Rory McIlroy, both of which can pound the ball out there, and they weren't leading the field. It takes more than just brute strength, although I think that was part of his success, but you still have to hit the ball. Like I said, if people think Bryson has a big advantage, it's only because he earned that advantage by his workout regimen and his swing discipline.

 

[GenErr]

Lots of good dialogue here.
I don't like the idea of "gimmikying" up a golf course to favor or hinder different types of golfers.
There are really no short hitters in the pro ranks anymore - although a handful may be a bit longer than others.
As far as us hackers we have different tees we can use to compensate for longer courses.

 

[rollin]

I can see why you would think nobody would like it, because it really changes the face of the game and makes it sort of gimmicky. I like the idea of toughening-up the golf course a bit towards the green it would be good for everybody. What about this idea, everybody show the same desire to succeed as Bryson does and adopt the same sort of swing style, and also get better physically fit? Also, you have the likes of Bubba Watson and Rory McIlroy, both of which can pound the ball out there, and they weren't leading the field. It takes more than just brute strength, although I think that was part of his success, but you still have to hit the ball. Like I said, if people think Bryson has a big advantage, it's only because he earned that advantage by his workout regimen and his swing discipline.

The discussion (as its been going) doesnt just fit Bryson and thus specific event but also fits a notion thats been going on for a long time. The powers that be seem to want to combat the so called "hitting too long" thing. This is not new via the latest open and Bryson but been going on for some years. Thats why courses continue to lengthen as holes get longer and longer. And its also why there is talk of rolling back the ball and or equipment etc...

As for the line idea? Why or how is that gimmicky or any different at all vs perhaps placing a lake at a given distance, or growing roiugh , or some other hazard etc.... People are always suggesting such things so drawing a line is really no different. They all do the same thing. They all force a layup and combat what some feel is an issue. But my line idea (silly perhpas) but achieves the goal and does so wihtout any the other fallout (or negatives) of the other ideas.

As for suggesting other players work out and or shape up like Bryson? That imo misses the point a lot. It certainly misses my point that lengthening everything only works to the longer hitters favor via hurting the shorter ones too much. And BTW the word "short" is only relagtive because all tour pros are at leaast pretty long at worst and imo they should be because thats part of what makes them a pro. But its not nor should it be mostly what its about.

The issue (if there is one) is that imo the game has become too slanted towards long hitters. The holes through the years have lost too much integrity and is exactly why so many have lengthened and even lengthened again. Golf imo is also suppose to be about placement and flighting. The so called B&G imo gets boring , and so does seeing holes blasted over through most their layout (and or integrity).
And it all works to create a less broad field of pros imo.

Is it that problematic yet? Im not sure but i do think the field has certainly lost some percentage of being more broad as the game caters more and more towards lengthy players via its own backfiring means to combat it. Theremight otherwise be some great players and competition the game could be missing out on.

 

[rollin]

Lots of good dialogue here.
I don't like the idea of "gimmikying" up a golf course to favor or hinder different types of golfers.
There are really no short hitters in the pro ranks anymore - although a handful may be a bit longer than others.
As far as us hackers we have different tees we can use to compensate for longer courses.

I agree that on tour even a short hitter is still relatively long. And when I suggest shorter hitters should also populate the field but I mean short at the pro level. I mean one shouldn't hit 245 max and still be able to compete atop a tour pro level. But if things keep going the field (as it has been) will continue to grow longer simply by default. I mean do we want to see where 290 no longer worthy enough to compete at the tour level? if the answer is yes then that imo could be a problem. A problem for courses as well as just how broad (or not) a field should there be?