Tougher but fairer

[Tom_Doak]

On Sunday I hosted a class in golf course design [8 students] from Michigan State University at Lost Dunes.  I figured it was better than a boring lecture, and it was my only opportunity to play the course this year.

Before they arrived I went around with the golf professional, who told me they wanted to look for a couple of new back tees on the course, with the intent of luring a USGA event.  He also shared that they hosted one of three rounds of the Notre Dame Invitational this fall, and that of 15 teams [75 players], three broke par on a tough day.

I just cannot understand why every course seems obsessed with adding length even if the course appears to be playing plenty tough for everyone who's been there.  And I cannot understand why USGA types keep suggesting owners add length, to put an event under consideration for an event other than the US Open or US Amateur.  Have they really lost control of the equipment to the point that Seniors and Juniors are ripping courses apart?

At the same time, the Lost Dunes pro wondered if we shouldn't add a chipping area to the right of the sixth green, because it's just so difficult if you miss the green over there.  It IS difficult, but why do they want to make the course easier there, and then add length to counteract it?

[George Pazin]

I think ironies like this arise because people want to think that their course is harder, but they don't want to face the reality of what harder means. Even more importantly, they want other people to think that their course is hard, because they feel it is some sort of reflection of themselves.

In keeping with this delusion, it's more important to note what people are hitting into greens - or at least, what they claim to be hitting into greens - than the actual results. It's more important that we learn someone has "driven" a short par 4 than we find out that they actually drive if pin high to the left and, not only failed to get up and down for birdie, they failed to par the hole as well. All that's really important is that, jeez, someone else might actually putt for eagle on this hole! Then what will my buddies think of me?

I noted this particular perversion on the Engineer's Club thread a few weeks back. People seem to want to remove contour/slope because the course is "unplayable" at "proper green speeds." So they take out contour or slope, the stuff that really makes golf interesting, because somehow they think that others will think less of them if their greens have to stimp 9 to be fun and playable.

Don't even get me started on the idiots that think flatter faster greens are harder....

There are two concepts that seem to be lost on many golfers, even thoughtful ones like the many posters on this site:

1) the notion of a half par hole;

and

2) golf is more fun when it's interesting!

[THuckaby2]

Don't even get me started on the idiots that think flatter faster greens are harder....

Boy, anyone who said that really would be a lunatic.  Thank god no one has.

 

As for Tom D's point, well... hosting USGA events does have its allure... and the blazered-folks do like "tough but fair"... and the simplest way to get the "tough" part is by adding distance... Since when can anyone avoid the path of least resistance, when it's so easy to determine?

By that I mean there no really easy answers to this, but the one that seems easiest is adding length.  It sucks, but such is the nature of this beast.

TH

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom,
Was that a request from the USGA or what the club thinks the USGA wants?  I'd suggest having a meeting a Far Hills if it was a request.

That's all unexplainable irrational stuff anyway....

Tell us how the day went instead.  What did they ask and learn?

Go Yanks!

[Brent Hutto]

There are two concepts that seem to be lost on many golfers, even thoughtful ones like the many posters on this site:

1) the notion of a half par hole;

and

2) golf is more fun when it's interesting!

A lot of people I play golf with don't like any Par 3 that they can't reach with at most a smooth, no-problem 3-wood. OTOH, everyone likes a "drivable" Par 4. To me they share the characteristic of being half-shot holes. Assuming there's not a forced carry all the way to the edge of the green I think two of the most interesting holes you can play are the "Par 3" whose green you can just barely reach with your 3-wood and the "Par 4" that's just barely out of reach with your driver, especially when there is some challenge of wind, contour or elevation change.

For my part, any "just barely" shot is by definition interesting. It just so happens that even mediocre courses tend to offer those kinds of shots for my game. I suppose designing a course to offer them to a Tour pro or a world-class amateur is quite an architect's challenge.

[THuckaby2]

This just illustrates the incredible power of the word "par", in perception.  Take a 250 yard hole with nothing to carry and a tough green, and a LOT of golfers hate it if you call it a par 3, saying it's way too tough... but LOVE IT if you call it a par 4, because then it's a driveable birdie hole.  Nothing has changed except a number on the card.  

A great example is #1 at Pasatiempo, and I apologize to those who haven't played the course, but many have so it works here.  Doak's group made a few changes to make it more doable (like eliminating the big tree in front of the green)...BUT... the powers that be there decided to call it a par 4, instead of the par 5 it has been called for many years... not an inch of distance was eliminated... the tees are all the same (except they no longer use the farthest back, in top of the cart barn)... Just due to this change, there has been all sorts of hue and cry that the hole is now too difficult, when in fact it's actually EASIER now that the tree has been removed!

Consider THE road hole.  Would it be cited amongst the world's best holes if it were called a par 5, as it was for many years? I guess so... but it sure has more "power" as a par 4....

Par is one powerful concept.

Deleting it from one's thought process is often beneficial, rarely easy to do.



TH

[Brian_Gracely]

It pains me to hear that they want to add length or make the course harder.  I only played there once, but I thought it was plenty long from the back tees and the greens apparently can be considerably faster (they were maybe 10-11 that day).  But more than anything else, WHY do they want to ruin that perfect golfer's paradise they have?  

Where do they want to add length?  I could see them using the backsides of some tees already there (#2 played from essentially #5 tee, #10 as a Par4 from back of tee) or maybe adding a back tee on #18, but other than that?  And all they would be doing is essentially robbing the existing ebb & flow of the course and opening up the greens to criticism for anyone that isn't bombing it 300+ off the tee (consistantly) and they trying to hold a 3w into a shelve on #4

Other than Cypress Point, Lost Dunes has been my favorite course all year.  Please don't let them change the course or the atmosphere of the club.

[Jim Franklin]

I recently played the new tees at Merion and understand that the club wanted to lengthen the 18th hole even more (back to the top of the quarry maybe 45 more yards), but the USGA said no because they didn't want a young kid playing in the amateur to come to 18 and not be able to hit it out of the quarry and therefore not being able to finish the hole. Here is a case of the USGA making the right call. Merion is all the golf course those guys want and I have a feeling that Lost Dunes is too. I would not lengthen just to make a number on a scorecard look impressive.

[tlavin]

This attitude, unfortunately seems ingrained in the club world as well as in the PGA/USGA.  I would venture to say that this attitude will continue to prevail until something is done to harness the properties of the golf ball.  And I'm definitely not holding my breath on that one!  

I'm with Schmidt on this one, I think Lost Dunes is tee-to-green perfect and I think the putting surfaces are phantasmagorical.  I wouldn't want to tweak anything on that golf course.

Having said all that, if the members want to get a USGA event and the USGA says that they need a new tee here or there and a chipping area here or there, the lure of an event is generally enough to get a couple motivated members to sway the rest of the club.

The real issue for Lost Dunes would be the conversation about green speeds.  If the USGA wants tees and chipping areas, that's one thing, but if they want to alter the character of the putting surfaces because they are unplayable at green speeds above 11 feet (which is in the realm of the inarguable), I would say, fuhgeddaboudit, because those greens should be like Greta Garbo, best left alone...

[Tom_Doak]

I should note that "the USGA" in this case are one or two USGA volunteers who had something to do with running a qualifying event at the course this summer.  The words aren't directly from Far Hills, even though the sentiment is certainly in line with the examples the USGA has been setting everywhere else.  Thanks for letting me "vent."

Mike N :  It was a big day of golf for eight college students who haven't had much chance to play since school started ... a bit of wind to make the course play tough.  They asked some good questions about the routing process, although it's hard to put them into the process when the "answer" is already known.  Next time, I would give them a map a couple of weeks in advance and see if anyone got close to the same routing ... there were so many environmental issues to dodge around that it's hard for me to imagine a lot of other solutions to that puzzle.

[Sean Leary]

Tom D,

FYI, the PNGA Mid-Am was held at Pacific and Bandon Dunes last week, with Pacific playing 64-6500 ish without very much wind, from what I was told.  Two players shot 1 under Par 70's at Pacific Dunes......

[paul cowley]

there is no easy answer to the adding distance equation , and it really must be addressed on a course by course basis
....a good example of a need for more distance was at forest oaks cc ,which love golf renovated last year so they could continue to hold the GGO there .

it was a great 'old' course ,built in the 60's ,originally by ellis maples....but it was painfully obvious that  he was using 235 yds as his turn point on any dogleg holes ,of which there are quite a few,and which does not equate well now
[especially for the tour players].
although we were in a residential built out setting ,we were able to shift greens and tees ,move tees across roads and get creative to add 300 needed yds ....the tour stops there this week [go davis!]....but on other courses that still function as designed ,i think dropping par is also a good solution .....reducing the par on some holes to create par 67 ,68  and 69's could create some exciting holes with no changes to the course [similar to reducing st andrews  #17 from a par five to a four ]...this is a notion that needs serious acceptance and less resistance. i think tom h and brents previous posts were right on.

[Ken Fry]

Tom,

The day the Notre Dame Invitational was played, the course was playing very firm and fast with a strong breeze.  The greens were also rolling quite fast and the coaches from ND chose the pin locations (many locations that, given the conditions, were a bit much).  The kids left knowing if they played well and scored well that day, it was a heck of a round of golf.

As far as adding length to Lost Dunes, I would only add this.  Like many of the complaints surrounding the conditions of the U.S. Open, when a course gets firm and fast, balls will go forever.  Long holes get shortened in a hurry.  These young college kids are hitting the ball unbelievable distances and straight.  The 10th hole turned into a drive and short iron for many of the players.  Is this a bad thing?  No because the course's defense is in the greens and was proven during the tournament.  Mike Young began a new thread to this point and I believe it's a point well made to counter the modern game.

[john_stiles]

Everyone should attend a junior or college event to see just how far junior and quasi-professionals hit the ball.

The answer is 'Yes' for juniors as to 'distance'.  Not sure about the scoring part of that equation but when officials see juniors rip it 300 yards routinely then they have to think about adding yardage ...... what with the potential for bothersome  scoring issues.   Your can only narrow the fairways and tuck pins so much.

Without wind,   inland courses are seen as defenseless in the struggle against lower scores....and so the 'beat' of longer continues.  It is not unknown for PGA officials to visit your course and upon first visit by non-architect type,   make suggestions for longer tees here, here, and here.   Unfortunately, club officials almost automatically give weight to such opinions.

Oakland Hills will undergo additional changes after 04 Ryder Cup.  New tee will be added at the TOC (14th I believe) even at a 'windy' links course.

To top it off,  even local players can hit pretty far and although under par scores are not routine by any means, it adds pressure to lengthening when members stand up and say, oh yeah, I add  x iron into the green (insert 8,9,PW,SW for x).   Even though they do not have 'plus' handicap...

Lenthening will continue for at least the next few years.

If your want your strategy to hold up (on an inland course) & customer even dreams of a 'national' mens event,   I don't see why you wouldn't consider 8000 yards or more when laying out a course.  You wouldn't place the tees back there  now but should have some idea and space to move them back.

Anyway, my plan is to attend a college event (with ranked national schools) this weekend.  Local school has Adidas (Taylormade) as a 'sponsor'.  Quasi-pros have almost unlimited access to latest drivers, etc.  It should be fun watching the drives.

[JohnV]

I certainly wouldn't consider a couple of volunteers with the USGA running a qualifier to be any authority on what the USGA would want to do to a course.  Of course, if their last names were Driver and Ridley I might alter that statement.

The players in the US Amateur are hitting it so far that the USGA was out measuring drives at the Mid-Am and might adjust the definition of a scratch golfer and the distance he hits it to reflect those yardages.  They know that the kids in college are heading to the pros and are probably not representative of the "scratch" golfer today.

[Mike Nuzzo]

The players in the US Amateur are hitting it so far that the USGA was out measuring drives at the Mid-Am and might adjust the definition of a scratch golfer and the distance he hits it to reflect those yardages.

John,
Wouldn't that lower the course rating for every club in america, and many would want to lenghten to get back to "normal".

Oh boy.

Go Yanks!

Move home plate back they hit too many homers this year....

P.S.
Tom -
Maybe you could post the holeless topo here?  I'd like to try anyway...

[Ken Fry]

Mike,

Distance does not necessarily equate scoring.......

[John_McMillan]

The extra length is desirable, but only if the greens are soft enough to hold well-placed approach shots.  Perhaps the maintenance crew from Heathlands can give some pointers to the Lost Dunes staff on this point.

[JohnV]

Mike, it probably wouldn't change much.  If the average US Mid-Am player hits it 250 it wouldn't change anything.  If he hits it farther, it would probably lower the ratings a little.  If he was shorter it could raise the ratings a little.  But, it would also change whether obstacles were in play etc so you can't really say.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Doak,  What would be the harm in giving Lost Dunes some added teeing grounds? Especially, if all they want is to lure the powerful usga? I wonder if push came to shove, if the usga would even use the new tees, on a day like the day the ND team golfed, so what's the harm?

[Tim_Weiman]

Adam,

I recently played golf with a pleasant fellow who told me about a Mid West golf course built in the last five years where the owner wants to build some new tees in the hope of attracting a tournament.

Presently, the back tees measure 7,400 yards. The plan is to increase them to 7,800 yards.

If that isn't pure insanity, I don't know what is.

Do we have to build 10,000 yard golf courses to make it clear that the golf technology arms race is nothing more than a big waste of money?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tim- The insanity exists, but lengthening, isn't an example of it. It's the softening of the canvas that's insane. The embracing of the predictable, under the guise of toughening. Shinnethingy should've showed that.

So what else is insane...

What was insane, was that a certain well placed superintendent, showed the world this last June, that shot making could be re-defined,  Or rather, re-invented. And what did he need to do? Turn off the spiget and pray Mother nature didn't drench his canvas. The result was a complete and total missing of the point, by the media, and thier faithful following. What's insane? is that each and every pro who missed the green w/ a sand wedge on #10, that Sunday, would hit the same tee shot everytime. Now that's nutz

[DMoriarty]

And I cannot understand why USGA types keep suggesting owners add length, to put an event under consideration for an event other than the US Open or US Amateur.  

The USGA's involvement (even if the dirty work is carried out by volunteers) is the part that gets to me.  Doesnt the USGA have a responsibility to protect the game?  Don't the leaders realize that they (and the members of ANGC) set the tone regarding what represents quality golf?    Isn't it time for these guys to start living up to their motto and stop acting as shills for the equipment makers?

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

I believe the course is plenty challenging enough for good players from the tees we built six years ago, allowing for the fact that long hitters can reach all the par-5's [except maybe the eighth hole] in two, which is the norm for any course nowadays.

I just don't enjoy building tees on my courses which you can only reasonably play if your swing speed is 125+.

Your question DOES make me realize another reason I've stood against the proliferation of multiple teeing grounds on golf courses ... if you are trying to build a tee to accommodate every player, then you have to accommodate the longest-hitting player in the world on every course, which is a waste of valuable real estate.

[TEPaul]

"Isn't it time for these guys to start living up to their motto and stop acting as shills for the equipment makers?"

David:

That's an "easy" question and assuming the regulators of golf are simply 'shills' of the equipment manufacturers, while an easy assumption or conclusion, is definitely not correct, at least to a large degree it's not correct. Fortunately, or unfortunately it's just not that simple as much as you and others would like to think it is.

We live in a complicated world and the regulators of golf and the manufacturer's of golf equipment are definitely not on the same side of this distance issue. It's like a tug of war with the manufacturers on one side and the regulators on the other. In the middle is what both of them are trying to win---the golfers of this world. The manufacturers are very good at seducing the world's golfers with what just may be the most seductive thing of all about golf---distance!

The regulators while definitely wanting and hoping to control (or even to roll back out of control distance) are simply not doing a particularly good job of convincing those world golfers of the dangers (primarily to golf architecture) of being constantly seduced by increased distance.

Seeing as how seducive the prospect of increased distance is to most all golfers the job the regulators need to do to convince the world's golfers of the futility in the end of increased distance is not an easy one by any stretch of the imagination as much as some people think it is or should be.

There is a very real danger today that if the regulators don't properly convince the world's golfers of these dangers and just simply continue to pay occasional lip service to the problem, the manufacturers very well might just forego conforming to the regulators rules and regs altogether and sell completley non-conforming balls and equipment to the world's golfers and then where would golf and architecture be in the future?

It'd be in a whole lot worse place than it is today, that's for sure! The regulators of golf balls and equipment may not be doing a good job of controlling the manufacturers and increased distance but they defiinitely are not 'shills' of the manufacuturers no matter how much you mght like to think that.