[Patrick_Mucci]

How can an architect combat distance off the tee in the real world ?

What golf course would permit them to place penal bunkers or penal features at 280-350 from the back tee, which would come into play for good, average and poor players ?

What golf course would permit defending par for the longest players at the expense of their general membership ?

How can an architect serve two, such diverse masters ?

Tom Doak challenged everyone to identify a good to great golf course that provides a 7,500 and a 6,500 challenge to the membership.

To date, not a single response, specifially, answered his question.   Why ?

Because it may be impossible to serve two or more masters, and therein lies the dilema.

[ForkaB]

Pat

It is all very simple, and has been said many times on this forum before.  Progressively narrow the landing area starting at about 250 up to 350.  After that some sort of "Elysian Field" to allow the duffer to get there in 2.  Anybody who can carry the ball 350+, well good for him (or her)!  Anybody who can't hit it 350 in two goes, well then just take 3 goes to get pas tthe trouble!  There are a number of examples to study.  You could start at #14 Dornoch, if you are inclined to learn something rather than just grumble.

Rich

PS--I answered Tom Doak's question specifically.  He hasn't answered yet and you obviously did not take the time to read what I said.

[jeffwarne]

Doak's question is an unfair one as I can't think of many 7500 yard courses period,much less any that are accepted by this forum.-mainly because they'd have to be brand new.

 The Ocean Course qualifies-I find it hard to see why if it's a challenge for pros at 7500 yards,it's not a challenge at 6500 for a proportionately shorter hitter.

I happen to to think Shinnecock will be there (7500) for the next Open. I enjoy playing the men's tees there(as do the members) and it certainly could provide a good challenge for the next Open at 7500 yardage. I also enjoy playing the back tees there,but probably not current the Open tees-which are rarely open.
If we do find a retrofit 7500 course that we agree on as a challenge for the pros (by adding back tees-not moving hazards)why can't amateurs play their appropriate tees an enjoy the game as always.

I think the real truth is good club amateurs and club pros can't accept that they can't play the same tees as touring pros anymore.They never really could fairly,but the differences are much more pronounced now.

I don't think architects are defenseless,I think the USGA is and should limit the ball.

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
Among modern architects, wouldn't Doak's own work qualify?  Dye and C&C, andd certainly the late Mike Strantz also seem to understand how to do this.  Waste areas running parallel to lines of play (Strantz), gradually narrowing landing areas (Dye) and wide driving areas with correct angles of attack to the green (Doak and C&C) would all be ways of constructing a course to be challenging from 7500 and 6500.  (This isn't to denigrate the other GCA's here; I just haven't seen enough stuff!)

I think the Love course at Barefoot and Kinderlou Forest by the Love group also accomplish this nicely, and they are getting recognition accordingly.

That said, it may be THE acid test for a modern architect.

[Tom_Doak]

AG:  I think Pete Dye is the master of this, maybe the only architect I've seen who can pull it off.  I remember watching the playoff at Whistling Straits a year ago and being amazed how well that tenth hole set up for Vijay to have a rip over the bunkers while the other guys played safe out to the right, from 50 yards farther back than I ever think about.  Any other designer would have had it so all three players were doing the same thing, but Pete understands the distances Tour pros hit it.

So do other Tour pros, of course, but they are all designing for themselves.  Pete isn't.

I've just pretty much ignored that class of player in my designs for the past 18 years, because they didn't come to play any of my courses so I didn't have to worry about them.  I focused on the good amateur and the retail golfer, and built to their scale, and that's why my courses have become popular.

Honestly, I don't even know how you could design a beautiful golf course for Tour pros -- they all hit it 300 yards now to narrow fairways, which is so far out of scale that no one can see what's going on at the far end!  I had to go out and get glasses just to think about it.

I am very curious to see how Sebonack turns out in this regard, and to see what I learned from it.  One of these days I am going to build a course for the Tour and I will have to pay more attention; but I still think that for most courses I was better off just not thinking about it at all.

PS to Jeff:  If they make Shinnecock 7500 yards it won't be a great course anymore.  They might as well just play the Open at Sebonack instead.

[Brent Hutto]

I want to follow up on Jeff's comments. I've played the Ocean Course from about 6,000 yards and I've watched the club pros play it from just over 7,000 yards.

I have no doubt that the driving test from the back tees is more severe, or at least more intimidating, when the wind blows but more than any other course I've seen overall the Ocean Course plays remarkably similar for the 200-yard driver (me) at 6,000 and for the 250-yard driver (club pros) at 7,000. I suspect that from 7,600 yards or whatever the way-back tees can be put the course would still be recognizable as the same challenges for the 290-yard drives (touring pros).

Like most tough courses, the ability to hit wedges onto the Ocean Course's greens (some of which are plateaus) is a bigger advantage than sheer driving distance. As Tom Doak mentioned that's where the approach of just moving tees back to maintain the challenge for long hitters breaks down. The frequent wind at Kiawah helps a bit in that regard but there does seem a fundamental limiation at the approach-shot end when designing or setting up a course for very different strengths of player.

[jeffwarne]

Tom explain to me why Shinnecock(as opposed to any other 7500 yard course)won't be a great course at 7500 yards if that's what the ball of that era calls for .
(I'm talking about for pros that you state "all hit it 300 yards to narrow fairways")
I'm sure Flynn thought it would never be great at 7000 yards
Shinnecock is one course where accuracy and knowledge of distance off the tee matter due to angled fairways .
Understand that many of the Open tees aren't open for regular back tee play and I would  keep the same policy at 7500 yards.

Disclosure-I think the ball needs to be rolled back and I disliked what they did to Shinnecock the last day of the Open.

the game is completely different when the ball goes farther and the holes are only lengthened and not widened. I would argue that with a longer ball and course that accuracy and short game are more important,because the targets remain the same size on a longer field-thus changing the scale.i.e. the player is now asked to hit a 35 yard wide fairway from 300 yards that he was expected to hit from 250 yards years ago.
 
Selfishly I'd like to see the ball rolled back for the good of the industry (speed of play,costs,skills of players) but also so I'm not getting outdriven by 70 yards,but only 45.

[Brent Hutto]

Selfishly I'd like to see the ball rolled back for the good of the industry (speed of play,costs,skills of players) but also so I'm not getting outdriven by 70 yards,but only 45.

Well stated. That's pretty much my take on it, too. Golf is the game I play twice a week or whatever. The stuff on TV is fine but decisions made about the future of the game (including equipment) should be judged by their effect on the game as it is played at thousands of golf courses on a Saturday in June and not by whether it helps "protect par" at a major championship.

[Kyle Harris]

This is a false dilemna if anything.

"How can an architect combat distance off the tee in the real world?"

-Around the green. Placing a tight premium on angle (which has an element of distance to it) and also trajectory. There are greens that are more accepting of a longer shot than a shorter shot. Use the physics of the new ball against the golfer.

-Off the tee. Offset angles and make the golfer either shape a shot to keep it in a playable area or hold something back distance-wise. Another function of using the equipment against the golfer... since when the golfer does miss with the new equipment, he misses A LOT more. Make a shot require a perfect draw or fade, with the straight ball catching trouble.

In general. Make the golfer think and choose... twice, three times... enough to get some doubt in his head. The most effective hole I've ever seen do this is the 1st at Huntingdon Valley.

What golf course would permit them to place bunkers at 280-350 yards from the back tee?
-This is not a creative solution to the distance problem. In fact, it just plays right into the distance problem's hand. The "You get bigger, we'll get bigger" attitude will eventually cause something to break - and equipment won't go first.

What great courses would permit defending par for the longest player at the expense of their general membership?
-False Dilemna... absent proof that the longer player needs more par defense than a general membership and also absent clear definitions of par, defending par, and general membership, I don't see a corellation.

How can an architect serve two, such diverse masters?
You imply disparity where none necessarily exists. Like the above, absent proof of a functional difference I am hesitant to say that architects aren't already serving the two groups.

Tom Doak's challenge isn't very practical. It's been said on this thread before... how many courses actually stretch to 7,500 yards *by design*

Adding new tees and designing a 7,500 yard golf course, to me, are two vastly different things.

[PThomas]

use trees as a defense mechanism!

if it's a straight hole ALL crooked shots get penalized -- which they should

[Tom Huckaby]

For ease of reference, Rich did cite The Old Course as a potential answer to Doak's question - he did so where Doak asked this, in the "Ruination" thread - first page.

And that is a pretty damn good answer.

So why does TOC work in serving these two masters where so many other courses either fail or don't bother to even try?

Huge greens?  Extremely penal bunkers?  OB on damn near every hole?  All of this causing angles to matter, even for pros?  All of this combined?

I don't know. But it does work.

I'm just ruminating now that whereas TOC is a truly great golf course, one of the world's best for sure for so many reasons... I'm just not sure we want it as a role model for future development.  Do we?

Rich - your concept of how to challenge all levels is very interesting and certainly would work.  But of course you wouldn't want this on every non-par3 hole on a course, right?  Formulae never seem to work very well on golf courses.

TH

[ForkaB]

Rich - your concept of how to challenge all levels is very interesting and certainly would work.  But of course you wouldn't want this on every non-par3 hole on a course, right?  Formulae never seem to work very well on golf courses.

TH

Tom

Good point.  Pat's  question seemed to imply a long hole.  Great courses will have great variety.  So, on shorter holes maybe green sites which can be more effectively approached from 120 at the proper angle rather than 50 from somewhere squint is the answer.  No course is really going to be able to (or should) have a defense against players who can carry the ball 320 laser-straight.

[Tom Huckaby]

Great point re how to construct the shorter holes.  And in the end, right on also re their being no defense against one who can hit it 320 and straight.  So there's no harm in just letting them shoot their scores, and allowing the 99.9% of the rest of golfers to get on with our lives.

TH

[Peter Pallotta]

On the thread about "second shot" golf courses, Tom Doak wrote the following:

"Sebonack will be hard because it has very small contoured targets and from the back tees you'll be hitting longer irons into some of them ... and because if you miss the greens you will frequently not be able to get up and down.  There are a lot of difficult shots around the greens.  Also, there are a lot of different lines of charm, but some of the best of them are only available if you can carry the ball 290 yards from the back tees."

Optimal lines requiring carries of 290 yards? Sounds to me like there still are adequate 'defenses' at the architect's disposal, even when a course is designed primarily to serve the needs of its members, as I assume Sebonak is.

Peter
And of course, as Tom H points out, there is TOC

[Tom Huckaby]

And of course, as Tom H points out, there is TOC

I was just quoting Rich Goodale, from another thread.  Original thoughts and me don't often see the same side of the street.
 

But that's a great quote from Doak as well.  And yes, if the otimal line does require a carry of 290 yards, that does seem to be plenty of defense for one and all.

TH

[Steve Lapper]

I am not trying to be cute, and I almost hate to place myself in any position to defend the present practice, but doesn't Augusta National qualify as providing a sound test from both 7500 and 6500 yards? Perhaps this might be the only defense for their recent practices?

[ForkaB]

And of course, as Tom H points out, there is TOC

I was just quoting Rich Goodale, from another thread.  Original thoughts and me don't often see the same side of the street.
 

TH

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Tom.  Even Doak ripped me off a few days ago by stealing my observation that "von" Hagge had married the two Bauer sisters in succession.  It's lonely at the top, I can tell you!

[Brent Hutto]

You know, Brent may have hit on something with his comment about getting outdriven by "only" 45 yards instead of 70.

Jeff Warne said it and I just quoted it. Yep, me and that Mark Twain, always ripping off superior intellects.

[Tom Huckaby]

Fair is fair, Rich.  Especially as an exceedingly rare observation I made on another thread recently was referred to "as Tom Doak pointed out"... sigh... oh I have no top to be lonely at, that's for sure, but well, it did make me keenly aware of proper attribution.

 

So shivas, careful there also.  Brent was commenting on jeffwarne's 45/70 observation.

Oh, never mind.  

 

TH

[LATE EDIT - crossed with Brent's admission - Brent, we observation pilferers need to unite.   ]

[Glenn Spencer]

My thoughts are more of a reflection of the golf course in general opposed to one hole in particular. I would maybe think about designing a course with what has been said, a solid amount of shorter par 4s with danger by the green. Then have the longer par 4s pinch in from 280-360 which has been said, but I would go ahead and let the long player have an advantage on the par 5s. This way every the par 4s ask him to hit it in play, but the 5s are an increased scoring chance. I think distance should be most rewarded on the longer holes, such as par 5s and par 5s only.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My thoughts are more of a reflection of the golf course in general opposed to one hole in particular.

I would maybe think about designing a course with what has been said, a solid amount of shorter par 4s with danger by the green.

Then have the longer par 4s pinch in from 280-360 which has been said, but I would go ahead and let the long player have an advantage on the par 5s.

And how would this affect women golfers and golfers who have less ability and therefore play from the forward tees.

Aren't you forcing them to interface with features that are beyond their ability to cope with ?

Pinching fairways at the 280-360 marker from the back tees brings this area into play from the forward tees for all of the other levels of golfers.

This way every the par 4s ask him to hit it in play, but the 5s are an increased scoring chance. I think distance should be most rewarded on the longer holes, such as par 5s and par 5s only.

Again, that's nice, but it unduely penalizes the lesser player.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()