PGA Tournaments in general

[Faemow]

So today while golfing I got into the discussion of how ridculously difficult the USGA is making courses for the players. Here's the perfect example, a friggin Par 5 that's 650 yrds away!?! More like a par 6. I mean sure the tools today do not compare with the tools a couple decades ago, but when will it stop? Why can't courses just make holes as difficult as the par 3 at pebble beach? It's reachable for any golf nut, but very deceiving in distance. It kind of seems like, the USGA are making courses longer only for power hitters and not for the short gamers. Will holes ever be a 700yrd hole par 5? What's your opinion? How would you design a course or a single hole?

[hammer]

While most average golfer should be able to reach a 650 yard hole in three there is little to no possiblity of reaching it in two. That is half the fun of par fives but there are plenty of pros who can hit a driver or 3 wood off the farway and make it. What they need to start doing is making hole dog leg instead of just making them stupid long. I think this would help level the playing field a little.

There are par 6's in austalia and I think I have heard of par 7's in Asia. Who want's to hit driver, 3 wood, 3 wood onto a green? I think more holes with slight dog legs a reasonable distance out would also make it more entertaining to watch. While I love seeing guys hit driver 330 then a 3 wood 290 to reach these holes, I would rather see them hit to long of to shot and see them deal with the obsticals.

The only other way is to make greens and there surrondings more difficult. If guys try to hit into 650 holes in to they should be severily punished if they miss. They should at least lose the stroke they were trying to gain.

[noback]

While most average golfer should be able to reach a 650 yard hole in three there is little to no possiblity of reaching it in two..First off, the EVERAGE golfer shoots around 100. So, I dont know about you, but the few guys I know that shoot around 100 dont have a chance of hitting a 650 par 5 in 3. That would mean hitting a drive of 250 and then 2 200 yrd 3 woods????:confused: :rolleyes:
Personally I like the target golf style of course. If you can use all the clubs in the bag, then the course designer did the right thing:cool:

[TpBoomer]

Personally I like the target golf style of course. If you can use all the clubs in the bag, then the course designer did the right thing:cool:

I agree. I'd much rather play a course that allows me to use all my clubs
:rolleyes:

[Grass Roots Tour]

Why not just squish the fairway down at 280 off the tee so if your gonna go long you'd better be extremely straight. Grow the rough in so fairways missed become bogies. If you firm up the greens as well you got yourself an over par winner on a course that doesn't have to be over 7,100.

On the other hand, I like seeing the guys on tour go low. Why does the USGA hate the birdie barrage so much?

[pudubny]

First off, the EVERAGE golfer shoots around 100. So, I dont know about you, but the few guys I know that shoot around 100 dont have a chance of hitting a 650 par 5 in 3. That would mean hitting a drive of 250 and then 2 200 yrd 3 woods????:confused: :rolleyes:
Personally I like the target golf style of course. If you can use all the clubs in the bag, then the course designer did the right thing:cool:
I understand "target golf" to refer to a course where you use little of the ground game. For example, a R. T. Jones course with forced carries over water and bunkers is a target course. Bultrusol has many examples. A links style course, particularly Carnoustie is a course where the ground game is prevelent. You can putt from 100 feet off the green and your ball will run 40 yards after it lands on the fairway.
I do agree that using many clubs in your bag makes it interesting. As for narrowing the fairways over 280, I disagree. Why should a person who hits it over 300 have LESS fairway to work with? That unfairly penalizes the long hitter. If fact many courses will allow wider areas deep to tempt the good player to attempt the heroic shot: over a bunker or water hazard for example. If we narrow the fairways we remove all strategy from the game. Their are no options off the tee, only a 20 yard fairway you must hit. Hitting long is a skill and many of the greatest players in the game where tallented players who could hit it long. Nicklaus, Snead, Nelson, Jones and Woods where/are all above average for their time in length. Their are a few exceptions like Player.
Also the USGA has not set-up Bultrusol, the PGA of America has and none of the players are complaining about the set-up. They understand that the 17th (650 yard par 5) is a real three shot par five for most of the players, and they are okay with that. BTW, most, if not all of us would not play it as 650 yards. Also, Hammer, it is a dogleg and much shorter than 650 if the players will risk taking there drive up the left side near the creek, but most will not.
I would think/hope that a 20 handicapper would not attempt to play Baltrusol from the tips. Perhaps 6200-6400 at best but you know some guys have got to play the "whole course".
I agree length is not the only answer, but I'm not sure we are helping when the design takes driver out of the long hitter's hands.
Some thoughts.
Pud.

[under4hrs]

I think the whole 17th hole is extremely overrated at Balustrol...look at the hole stats. It is playing 15th easiest for the tournament...as many bogeys as birdies. These guys play it 3 wood/5 iron/sand wedge a lot, leading to an easy par 3 essentially.

Holes like 7 or 3 I dislike as well...these holes were not originally designed to be played from 500 yards...end result is a tricked up par 4 where they are playing a half stroke over par...making 5 times as many bogeys as birdies. These greens cannot hold a 200 yard shot coming in...weren't supposed to.

Give me the aura of Pinehurst, rawness of Pebble, or Whisling Straits for that matter - a course where thought is required, or factoring in the elements. To often we see players spray it in the trees, only to get a perfect lie from the gallery walkway, and able to hit it on the green - often better than the opponent that is 5 feet off the fairway. Penalize the wayward shots, not the 1 degree offline shots.

I sure the traditionalists love this track - and it is great not seeing a birdie barrage...but let's start seeing some of the new courses in the US, not the same old 100 year old tracks...

[Andru]

I think the whole 17th hole is extremely overrated at Balustrol...look at the hole stats. It is playing 15th easiest for the tournament...as many bogeys as birdies. These guys play it 3 wood/5 iron/sand wedge a lot, leading to an easy par 3 essentially.

Holes like 7 or 3 I dislike as well...these holes were not originally designed to be played from 500 yards...end result is a tricked up par 4 where they are playing a half stroke over par...making 5 times as many bogeys as birdies. These greens cannot hold a 200 yard shot coming in...weren't supposed to.

Give me the aura of Pinehurst, rawness of Pebble, or Whisling Straits for that matter - a course where thought is required, or factoring in the elements. To often we see players spray it in the trees, only to get a perfect lie from the gallery walkway, and able to hit it on the green - often better than the opponent that is 5 feet off the fairway. Penalize the wayward shots, not the 1 degree offline shots.

I sure the traditionalists love this track - and it is great not seeing a birdie barrage...but let's start seeing some of the new courses in the US, not the same old 100 year old tracks...That's not true. 3 is pretty much downhill. It was a tough hole because of the rough. Guys had no problem holding the green.

The 7th green was expanded. It's a larger green than was originally designed. It's a tough golf course no doubt but it's not at all unfair. That course is beautiful. You should see it in real life. The thing that strikes me is there are some nice elevation changes. it's no Big Horn or augusta but the course isn't flat.

I saw some very creative shots not shown on Television. Around the green as well. There was a premium on shot making.

[el tigre]

Here's an interesting article on that subject:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Fidlin/2005/09/08/1207353-sun.html

It seems that the RCGA is taking the position that a course does not have to be long to be tough, and most of the PGA Tour players agree. Both Shaughnessy and Hamilton G&CC are short tracks that have been praised by players of all different styles.