Interesting comments from Patrick Cantlay and they are not about LIV

[jethreauxdawg]

https://sports.yahoo.com/patrick-cantlay-questions-golf-course-200147438.html
He sounds critical of a course where he is the most recent winner, and critical of many of the new setups on the Tour these days. Basically asking why the only strategy the tour/courses use to combat extremely long hitters and new equipment overpowering courses is to make the course longer. He points out other methods like dog legs and protected greens that humble the long drivers.

 

[Shmuley]

Convince me he is wrong.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

It's a very good point. By stretching out the course you are actually rewarding the longest hitters, not punishing them. Dog legs, fairway bunkers, and split fairways take the driver out of my hands. Long par 4's don't.

I'm also not a fan of punitive golf course design for us mortals. Shouldn't golf be fun? I have a local course that is beautiful, but hard as hell. Everything beyond the primary rough is a waste area. Last round I played I went a yard left of the green pin high and the ball was gone for ever. Damn thing might as well be an island green. Ruined my round with that double bastard.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

This your golf bag, JoeLee?

 

[Dawg1976]

I agree. The other side would say people like to see the long ball. But you could have a combo of both. Something needs to be done as -20 is the norm now days on the PGAT.

 

[Go Budaw]

Sounds like its a matter of feasibility to me. Much easier / cheaper to add length to the course than to drastically change the fairway shape.

Could be more of a problem with actual course selection for the tournaments than it is with architecture. There are shorter, less forgiving courses out there.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I 100% agree with him. Long drive competitions are fun to watch, but I like courses where you have to be able to hit your approach shots from the correct spot in order to score.
Usually when players are critical of a course or a setup it sounds like sour grapes from a loser, but he is clearly not that.

 

[ckDOG]

Agree

Sounds like its a matter of feasibility to me. Much easier / cheaper to add length to the course than to drastically change the fairway shape.

Could be more of a problem with actual course selection for the tournaments than it is with architecture. There are shorter, less forgiving courses out there.

You could also realistically narrow the fairways (or add more bunkers), let rough get deeper, and make less consistent bunkers (pros often don't mind missing in bunkers - that defeats the purpose). Those all reward accuracy over distance.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Just depends on the course. Some can make it more challenging by narrowing some fairways and letting the rough get a little thicker without having to add alot of length. A good example of this is TPC Southwind from this past weekend. In the 90s and early 2000s that course was pretty easy for the players and the winners would easily shoot -20 and sometimes even lower but in the last decade they have really worked on tightening then holes and letting the rough get thicker. It makes for a more challenging course without really adding length.

 

[Tin Cup Cowboy]

I can't convince you that you are wrong....

or that he is wrong. I can point out that you are correct though because remember in 2013 when they were going to destroy the US Open course at Merion? Played 6900 yards, +8 was the cut and Rose won with a +1 total.

 

[johnson86-1]

Just depends on the course. Some can make it more challenging by narrowing some fairways and letting the rough get a little thicker without having to add alot of length. A good example of this is TPC Southwind from this past weekend. In the 90s and early 2000s that course was pretty easy for the players and the winners would easily shoot -20 and sometimes even lower but in the last decade they have really worked on tightening then holes and letting the rough get thicker. It makes for a more challenging course without really adding length.

The thicker rough is a mixed bag. Yes, it makes it more penal to miss the fairway, but longer hitters also can handle the rough better typically because of their swing power makes it easier for them to swing through rough. You don't want to take away the advantage of hitting longer, so that's ok to an extent, but you don't want to inadvertently make hitting it longer and faster swing speed even more important. Having shorter rough and increasing the chances of a errant ball making it to OB or water could be better than longer rough as far as de-emphasizing hitting it long.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Agree. I always said when you "Tiger proof" a course, you might make it little harder for Tiger, but you make it way harder for all his competition. Penalizing inaccuracy with deep fairway bunkers and having 70 to 100 degree dog legs where going over trees is a tight landing area are better ways to make courses difficult for all.

 

[VegasDawg13]

Sounds like its a matter of feasibility to me. Much easier / cheaper to add length to the course than to drastically change the fairway shape.

It's even easier and cheaper to simply change the ball. Titleist/Callaway/etc. won't have that, though

 

[Arnold Babar.sixpack]

Tiger proofing a course back in Tigers prime was an advantage to Tiger because he was so much longer than everyone else. Now a days such a large % of the guys on tour bomb the **** out of it. You don't have to lengthen all these courses these days to make them harder. Grow the rough up high as hell and make the fairways 20 yards wide. You want to hit driver? You bet. Go for it. But if you miss the fairway your going to be a hundred yards out with your ball laying down in the rough and it will be like hitting out of a laundry basket.

The ball isn't going to change. Titleist, Bridgestone, Taylor Made etc.. R&D departments are light years ahead of the USGA when it comes to golf ball technology. The USGA has no clue about golf balls and the ball manufacturers are not going change it. Well they are going to change it, they are going to keep making balls that go even farther.