Fix The Distance Issue on Tour (w/o Altering Equipment)

[Templet0n]

A lot has been said about the USGA Distance project, and many would agree that tour based distance has become a bit of a problem.

Do you believe we can alter the design of a course to accommodate the new rather significant numbers being projected by the 'new' PGA Tour golfer? Here are a couple potentially viable solutions that would make distance be a bit more difficult to achieve;

- More doglegs, with impossible cutoffs
- Crazy tight fairways at a certain distance
- Bunkers or water at a certain distance
- Angled fairways at a certain distance (which at tour firmness would launch most balls into rough)
- Set up uneven lies or basically fairway moguls at a certain distance

I agree with you in principle, but I don't really want to watch the tour playing what could be considered clown golf. I think these could be done in a very understated way and be effective. Look at this weeks event. Sure the greens had everyone confused. More 3 and 4 putts than you will see the rest of the year. But, the course was tight and playable at the same time.

It was a very good balance of risk and reward. Also, accurate shots to the fairway should be rewarded. Setting up fairways to essentially be a penalty because if you it it too far and it kicks the ball into the rough is not a good set up in my mind.

I think the model for course set up should be Royal Melborne. Not every course can effectively do what they did at the Presidents cup, but that was great golf. It also was not overly tight or tricked up.

 

[McLovin]

strategic bunkering

thicker rough

firmer greens

MUCH slower fairways

 

[maxmax]

I am in that camp. Tour Pros can absolutely pick apart a soft course. I know for me personally, I hit way more fairways when they are soft.

It also takes away the skill of shaping the ball from the tee. If it's going to stop close to where it lands, you can hit any shot shape you want regardless of contours.

And sometimes I think people forget that the pro's get a lot of roll, because their balls are flying super fast with very little spin.

 

[ArmyGolf]

I agree with you in principle, but I don't really want to watch the tour playing what could be considered clown golf. I think these could be done in a very understated way and be effective. Look at this weeks event. Sure the greens had everyone confused. More 3 and 4 putts than you will see the rest of the year. But, the course was tight and playable at the same time.

It was a very good balance of risk and reward. Also, accurate shots to the fairway should be rewarded. Setting up fairways to essentially be a penalty because if you it it too far and it kicks the ball into the rough is not a good set up in my mind.

I think the model for course set up should be Royal Melborne. Not every course can effectively do what they did at the Presidents cup, but that was great golf. It also was not overly tight or tricked up.

Royal Melbourne is often viewed as the golf standard of golf course design - but it's important to remember the very unique soil conditions that allow and foster that sort of design.

 

[Sean]

The USGA is going to do what the USGA wants to do. I think it is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Stemmy66]

Long grass is not the answer. That is the recipe for bomb and gouge.

Wait, what.... this is exactly what is going on now.... guys bulking up in the offseason with the idea of hitting it as far as possible.... Missing the fairway should be penalized and it’s not happening unless it’s US Open.... Some courses set up greens to be tough or count on tough weather.... well, if it rains though hard fast greens aren’t so tough..... grow the grass.... every course can control

 

[Canadan]

I agree with you in principle, but I don't really want to watch the tour playing what could be considered clown golf. I think these could be done in a very understated way and be effective. Look at this weeks event. Sure the greens had everyone confused. More 3 and 4 putts than you will see the rest of the year. But, the course was tight and playable at the same time.

It was a very good balance of risk and reward. Also, accurate shots to the fairway should be rewarded. Setting up fairways to essentially be a penalty because if you it it too far and it kicks the ball into the rough is not a good set up in my mind.

I think the model for course set up should be Royal Melborne. Not every course can effectively do what they did at the Presidents cup, but that was great golf. It also was not overly tight or tricked up.

What about anything on my list would be considered clown golf?

Genuinely curious - and for what it's worth I wouldn't want to play a course dictated by any of my bullet points.

 

[Templet0n]

Royal Melbourne is often viewed as the golf standard of golf course design - but it's important to remember the very unique soil conditions that allow and foster that sort of design.

Correct, that is why I said not every course can be that. Just that as far as set up goes. It was perfect. It is also not overly long, or overly tight. I look at Rivera in a similar way. It is not overly long. It is a bit tighter.

Good course set up in my mind does not take driver out of your hands because even if you hit it in the fairway because you don't know if you will end there. It should be predictable. Meaning, meaning good shots are rewarded.

Now, if you hit it through a fairway because of a dogleg or fairway that ends, that is a different story. Hitting one in the fairway but it kicks right or left I don't think is good.

 

[CBaker]

I honestly don’t think anything needs to change. Watching any sport at its highest level is there for one thing and one thing only - entertainment. I wish each tournament was a dogfight to see who can go lowest.

but, if they are that concerned, just stop letting the fairways run out 50 yards and boom, problem solved. Playing 7k with no roll out will make a course play significantly longer.

 

[Bryndom]

I think Augusta really has the recipe to fix the distance issue. Comparatively, not a super long course, but the difficulty isn't Open crazy and yet, it favors course management over distance bombing. Tiger's never going to be the longest in today's game... and he masterfully played that back 9 on Sunday to win

 

[golfunfiltered]

I think many of these ideas would work, but at what point does it cease being golf as we know it? We also don’t need courses that look more like mini-golf layouts.

 

[DataDude]

Wait, what.... this is exactly what is going on now.... guys bulking up in the offseason with the idea of hitting it as far as possible.... Missing the fairway should be penalized and it’s not happening unless it’s US Open.... Some courses set up greens to be tough or count on tough weather.... well, if it rains though hard fast greens aren’t so tough..... grow the grass.... every course can control

No course is hard when the ball stops in the fairway right where these guys hit it. They can hit a high fly ball to a spot fairly easy. Make them stop the ball where the want when things are firm then it gets difficult to bomb out.

 

[Canadan]

I think many of these ideas would work, but at what point does it cease being golf as we know it? We also don’t need courses that look more like mini-golf layouts.

when they start rolling back equipment.

 

[Templet0n]

What about anything on my list would be considered clown golf?

Genuinely curious - and for what it's worth I wouldn't want to play a course dictated by any of my bullet points.

Nothing specifically, all to a point are good ideas and suggestions. I just don't want to see courses get too "tricked up" or taken too far. Sorry if I was not clear. I like it difficult, it should just be predictable. Does that make more sense?

 

[Canadan]

Nothing specifically, all to a point are good ideas and suggestions. I just don't want to see courses get too "tricked up" or taken too far. Sorry if I was not clear. I like it difficult, it should just be predictable. Does that make more sense?

This kind of circles back to my thoughts on course design as a whole, though. The USGA is making a lot of pretty grand claims about the tours overpowering layouts, but are they spending enough time considering how good the layouts actually are?

 

[Templet0n]

This kind of circles back to my thoughts on course design as a whole, though. The USGA is making a lot of pretty grand claims about the tours overpowering layouts, but are they spending enough time considering how good the layouts actually are?

Totally agree. Just thinking about how the USGA sets up the US opens and how the get out of control at times. Make it difficult but playable and fair. It is a tough balance but it can be done. I am just thinking slippery slope thoughts.

 

[Canadan]

A lot of the feedback already provided is why I think the idea of creating more moguls in fairways at a certain distance is a real opportunity to reduce the likelihood of obscenely long drives. Arnie did it here locally at the TPC, and I had a blast trying to navigate it from a shorter tee.

Basically, a couple holes were relatively short in comparison to others, but offered bigger lie challenges the closer you got to the green off the tee. While I wouldn't normally love the idea of random chance as a guard, it actually made a lot of sense to me. Having an awkward lie with a false front forces a golfer to play defensively, and as such, doesn't allow for as many birdies.

 

[DG_1234]

A lot has been said about the USGA Distance project, and many would agree that tour based distance has become a bit of a problem.

Do you believe we can alter the design of a course to accommodate the new rather significant numbers being projected by the 'new' PGA Tour golfer? Here are a couple potentially viable solutions that would make distance be a bit more difficult to achieve;

- More doglegs, with impossible cutoffs
- Crazy tight fairways at a certain distance
- Bunkers or water at a certain distance
- Angled fairways at a certain distance (which at tour firmness would launch most balls into rough)
- Set up uneven lies or basically fairway moguls at a certain distance

Come this May the PGA Championship will be at Harding Park GC, SF. A few months ago Harding's tee shot landing areas were narrowed from about 35 yard average to 22 yards wide (PGA /USGA current standard for Tour play events). So long as it does not rain much before the tournament the bounce and roll will make it very hard for players to avoid the rough. And during the past year Harding added about 70 yards to five different tee boxes, increasing the total course yardage by about 350 yards.
The above is about all that could be done to Harding without wrecking the design of the course.
Here are my thoughts on the suggestions you wrote:
1) more doglegs (no room for that on existing courses)
2) crazy tight fairways (22 yards wide is the Tour standard for the big events and if the ground is firm that's already hardly any room for a ball to land/stop)
3) bunkers/water at a certain distance (might wreck the original design of the course and certainly would harm amateur play for the 51 weeks pros are not at the course)
4) angled fairways (complicated drainage issues and expensive)
5) moguls (gimmick that would be expensive, hard to mow/maintain, harm the beauty of the course, upset amateur play during the 51 weeks pros are not there).

Personally I don't think the Tour and, or, golf, has any distance problem. Mostly the "problem" is created by media talking about distance because they can't think of anything else to talk about. In recent weeks the Tour has been to Pebble (short course), Torrey Pines (long course), Riviera (medium long course), all places which have had Tour events for decades and things are fine. So what if 30 years ago players hit 6-iron into a green and today they swing 9-iron ? What difference does it make ?

 

[Templet0n]

A lot of the feedback already provided is why I think the idea of creating more moguls in fairways at a certain distance is a real opportunity to reduce the likelihood of obscenely long drives. Arnie did it here locally at the TPC, and I had a blast trying to navigate it from a shorter tee.

Basically, a couple holes were relatively short in comparison to others, but offered bigger lie challenges the closer you got to the green off the tee. While I wouldn't normally love the idea of random chance as a guard, it actually made a lot of sense to me. Having an awkward lie with a false front forces a golfer to play defensively, and as such, doesn't allow for as many birdies.

Arnie seems to like his moguls. he built a course here that has the same thing. Very rolling fairways.

 

[maxmax]

I think Augusta really has the recipe to fix the distance issue.

If you mean that the recipe is having tons of money so they can buy nearby houses and roads so they can continue to expand the course, then absolutely!

Not sure how many people actually love the changes they made when "Tiger Proofing" it though. The new trees often dictate a certain shot instead of letting the players try to figure stuff out themselves, and the new rough just helps stop wayward drives from going into the creeks or woods.

Still love Augusta though, it's my life long mission to get to play a round there one day.

 

[BigMac]

I think some control over ball is inevitable but hope they avoid bifurcation responses. I like that we amateurs and pros can play the same equipment. Changing course layout and setup for tour events really is a good idea to explore before equipment.

I can't speak for anybody else, but the bolded part above means nothing to me. What the pros play never has any influence on my equipment decisions - I don't play razor-thin musclebacks and I don't play tour balls. Nor do I have a tech in a manufacturer's trailer standing by to build/tweak/trick up my clubs at every round I play. I look at the pros' gear choices/endorsements as what they are - they're shilling for whoever was the highest bidder for their name (with a few notable exceptions).

 

[GoldenBuff]

I can't speak for anybody else, but the bolded part above means nothing to me. What the pros play never has any influence on my equipment decisions - I don't play razor-thin musclebacks and I don't play tour balls. Nor do I have a tech in a manufacturer's trailer standing by to build/tweak/trick up my clubs at every round I play. I look at the pros' gear choices/endorsements as what they are - they're shilling for whoever was the highest bidder for their name (with a few notable exceptions).

I get the perspective. I don't play equipment because a pro plays it -- I have never been one to follow the herd -- but keeping it one game in terms of equipment across all levels is appealing to me. I play tennis and basketball without different equipment requirements. Same size courts, same ball. And so on. The birfucation is what I don't like. I am one who believes the USGA is right to flag distance trends as an issue for male tour pros. They may have to make equipment change choices. But if they do, I hope they can keep it ONE game across all levels. Not everyone will agree with me. Just my take.

 

[93civiccpe]

People would argue that slowing down fairways makes them too easy to hit. THoughts?

I have seen the best guys spray it like crazy trying to mash a drive. I don't believe a slow fairway magically makes the ball going way right or left find the fairway. If you mean a slower fairway gives less chance to roll through I don't understand the argument. Since the complaint is the bomb and gouge has them always hitting wedges then a ball that hits and sticks back further in the fairway is putting a longer club in their hands. Isn't that what we want?

 

[93civiccpe]

I think many of these ideas would work, but at what point does it cease being golf as we know it? We also don’t need courses that look more like mini-golf layouts.

I think you are making a huge leap. What most have proposed is far from that.

 

[Canadan]

I have seen the best guys spray it like crazy trying to mash a drive. I don't believe a slow fairway magically makes the ball going way right or left find the fairway. If you mean a slower fairway gives less chance to roll through I don't understand the argument. Since the complaint is the bomb and gouge has them always hitting wedges then a ball that hits and sticks back further in the fairway is putting a longer club in their hands. Isn't that what we want?

It's not my argument. None of this is, frankly.

What people believe, is that softer fairways are easier to hit because the ball doesn't lumber... and a ball even slightly offline could roll into the rough. Now it just becomes a dart board of sorts.