Closing in on 8,000 yard designs

[Randy Thompson]

So Tigerīs course in Dubi is suppose to be topping 7800 yards from the back tees. Any history buffs out there that can tell me what was the average or a fair playing length for Proīs say fifty years ago in the days of Hogan and Nelson. Also, what would you say the perenctange of hitting distances has increased due to technology advances during that fifty year period. I am presently designing in the 7,000 to 7400 range and want to see if that needs to be increased.
For example if the average driving distance for a Pro fifty years ago was 250 and today is 310, thats around,,not exactly but around twenty five percent increase. If they were playing an average of 6500 yard courses back then, then should we be designing in 8,000 range???

[Andy Troeger]

Randy,
There are already a few courses that have topped 8,000 yards. I hope its not a trend personally. Why design a course that long unless you are designing a course for a pro tournament? How many folks have any interest in playing back there.

[Bill_McBride]

The good news is those tip tees don't have to be real big, but the bad news is the demand for more land due to the greater width of corridor required by a 310 yard drive! 

Is it R&A or USGA in Chile? 

[Randy Thompson]

Andy,
I think we have a responsibility to design for all levels of players, even if those tees will only be used one percent of the time or less. I love the versaltility, depending on wind conditions, you can move tee locations up or back and make it a realistic birdie hole or lenghten the hole one day to the next so the player has to back off and play smart and take the par. I think we saw great examples at this years open and how the holes played different depending on the tee markers and pin locations. They actually got into Tigerīs head, whcih I have never seen before and the results were, he made some mistakes, also which I have never seen before in that proportion anyways. The problems I have seen, is that at the average Joe Blow course, the person setting marker locations and pin locations doesnīt have the understanding or expertise to fully utilize the versaltility that we had in mind during the design process so it rarely gets captured.

Bill,
Your absolutley correct, thats why I would like more facts on the matter to justify to my clients because that extra couple of hundred yards translates into less lots which translates into millions of dollars in loss of income for the developer, so it will never be an easy sell.

[Andy Troeger]

Randy,
You make some good points certainly. On the other hand, how large of a percentage of your time do you want to devote to that 1% of players? I think there are other ways (interesting greens, fairway hazards) to challenge all level of players without overly taxing the average golfer. Versatility is a wonderful thing, but it can also be achieved with pin locations and other means. Length is only one means of achieving elasticity, and its one of the more expensive I would think since it requires more land. It also requires more walking (if that's a concern) for those who might have to walk 100 yards past the back tee just to reach their own teeing ground!

[Kalen Braley]

Randy,
You make some good points certainly. On the other hand, how large of a percentage of your time do you want to devote to that 1% of players? I think there are other ways (interesting greens, fairway hazards) to challenge all level of players without overly taxing the average golfer. Versatility is a wonderful thing, but it can also be achieved with pin locations and other means. Length is only one means of achieving elasticity, and its one of the more expensive I would think since it requires more land. It also requires more walking (if that's a concern) for those who might have to walk 100 yards past the back tee just to reach their own teeing ground!

Andy,

Or you can do it like Ballyneal and make the 1% do the walking back on most holes.  Seems to make sense for me, especially considering I rarely play from the tips. 

[Randy Thompson]

Andy,
I donīt think I devote a lot of time and effort towards this special group, it more about trying to keep them confined to the same landing areas as other players, so they donīt blow it over the stragic fairway hazards that set up the landing area and keeping some risk and rewards involved. But put yourself in the developers shoes, would you be willing to lose a couple million dollars worth of lots to accomadate this one or two percent of players. We as golf architects may feel an obligation to design for all levels, but the developers that feel that way are few!

[Bill_McBride]

Randy, would it be possible to place fairway bunkering of sufficient interest at the right locations to keep a 6,800 yard course viable even for the long guys? Centerline bunkers, diagonal bunkering, borderline greens with difficult potential pinning areas......if the key is to keep better players from very low scores from the tips, length could be element #10 in that equation.

"Tiger-proofing" with added distance has been proven to be a lost cause!

[Anthony Fowler]

Randy, this is an interesting thought.  However, it is not exactly correct to assume that course length should increase in a proportional manner to distance increases.  This is because an 8000 yard course is much harder for a player that hits it 310 than a 6500 yard course (all else being equal) is for someone that hits it 250.  When you hit the ball longer, it easier for it to get offline and harder to get it to land in a precise location.  It is much harder to get a 200 yard 7 iron close to the hole than it is to get a 150 yard 7 iron close.  The slight miss is dramatically amplified from the longer yardage.  

I'm not sure what the correct factor would be to increase yardages by as players hit their drives further.  However, it seems to me that we have it fairly close to correct (a little on the long side maybe) with our recent U.S. Open courses playing 7400-7600.  I think it's fair to say that Oakmont '07 is harder with '07 equipment and fitness  than is Oakland Hills '51 with '51 equipment and fitness.

[Andy Troeger]

Randy,
You make some good points certainly. On the other hand, how large of a percentage of your time do you want to devote to that 1% of players? I think there are other ways (interesting greens, fairway hazards) to challenge all level of players without overly taxing the average golfer. Versatility is a wonderful thing, but it can also be achieved with pin locations and other means. Length is only one means of achieving elasticity, and its one of the more expensive I would think since it requires more land. It also requires more walking (if that's a concern) for those who might have to walk 100 yards past the back tee just to reach their own teeing ground!

Andy,

Or you can do it like Ballyneal and make the 1% do the walking back on most holes.  Seems to make sense for me, especially considering I rarely play from the tips. 

That's certainly another option, and if you're trying to build the best course you probably would have to do a little bit of both. Somebody's got to walk farther, most likely it would be everybody!

[Randy Thompson]

Bill,
 I thinik that is what is happening on all the older gems, so yes it is possible and keeping many architects alive in the US doing restorations along the lines you described. I agree on all efforts of Tiger proffing have failed but he is not just long...his entire game is so damn cosistent. He gets all the publicity about length but Angel Cabrera and Andres Romero are just as long off the tee.

Andy F.
Well said, be interesting to see if most feel the same way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have been arguing for slightly shorter courses recently. (given the funding situation, the arguments are pretty much theoretical, but here they are)

If the US Open and PGA can be played at 74-7600 yards, shouldn't most courses be at least 3-5% less that courses set up to challenge the best players in the world?  3-5% of 7500 yards is 225 to 375 Yards, leaving 7125 to 7275 as plenty.  Perhaps we could add in another 100 yards if par 72 rather than par 70, but you get the idea.

At Wild Wing, I recently learned that they have had less than 50 regular players on their back tees in the last five years.......and thats abouty 7200.  At that rate, using anything other than a 15 x 15 tee is a waste of resources, as is turf for the first 200 yards or so from that tee.  I do recall Colbert hitting test balls in some adverse winds at Colbert Hills during construction.  He ordered the fw cut back to about the 180 mark based on the results.  He was clearing them, but he could see some college players not clearing them.

One thing is clear to me - 7000 yards is too short for back tee players.  If you can't get to 7250, I figure you may as well leave out the back tee and play at 6800, which about 20% of adult male players find adequate.  (Most prefer 6350 yards)

[Bryan Izatt]

Randy,

For whatever it's worth the average Tour driving distance is around 290 now and was 260 back in 1980.  Their stats don't go back to the mid-fifties.  So in 25 years a gain of 30 yards on 260.  That's about 12%.

Assuming that a good championship test was 7000 yards in 1980 and assuming that players have achieved a 12% increase in distance with all their clubs then an increase of 850 yards would seem necessary, but that still doesn't get you to 8,000 yards.

The 1980 US Open was at Baltusrol at just over 7,000 yards.  The 1981 Open was at Merion at around 6,500 yards.  Winning scores were similar.  The 1954 Open was at Baltusrol which was already at 7,000 yards that year.  But, the winning score was 11 strokes higher.

From that I think I'd go with others' comments that distance alone is somewhere down the list of what challenges the best players.

[Tony Ristola]

Randy, if there is no wind serving as the standard defense and you're going to design with the pro's and best Am's in mind, then that's on the money. Sad but true. How often do you see these guys attack par-4's with long irons these days?

In the old days it was easier to consider all skill levels, but with the cost of land etc today, the question has to be is it worth it? Certainly you can provide variety and challenge at far less than 8,000 yards, but if you use Dye's example of Ross putting the tee on the first at No.2 into the parking lot (how would he know:)  and extrapolate from there...

Used to be a 400-yard hole was a drive an mid-iron. An 8 or 9-iron if you thumped the drive, a 7-iron for a decent tee shot of 250, and as much as a five or six iron if you hit it a bit ugly. Now it's SW, SW-wedge, wedge.

[Randy Thompson]

Bryan,
Thanks for being the first to answer the question directly, very useful for me these numbers.

To All,
I am not in favor of 8,000 yards or contemplating my next course will be that length, nor do we design primary for the proīs and low ameratures. We just try not to ignore them and feel some responsibility to deliver a course for all levels of players. The fact of the matter also remains..high handicappers will find trouble all by themselves, you donīt need to invent it!

Tony and all,
Your last point is extremely valid and my major concern. I over saw construction on a course for Von Hagge in Buenos Aires. Von Hagge has never been accused at designing puff courses. We finished building the course in 94 and the final product measured around 6600 yards. In the year 2000 that club hosted the World Cup and the USA represented by Tiger and Duval, slightly edged the Argentine team of Eduadro Romero and Angel. Every Par five was reachable and almost all the Par 4's played, drive wedge or driver sand wedge. It was a good test of golf and the better team won, which is what you hope your design will bring out. But to me...something was missing... when a course with six years of age turns into driver wedge.  Hopefully I can be avoid that in our designs but, that will depend on if I am able to sell it to or educate the developers. Mick Jagger said it best, "You canīt always get what you want, but you have to try sometimes..to get what you need!" Rock & Roll

[Matt_Ward]

I don't have a set number on just how long a course should be.

I personally like a few 8,000+ courses -- the one in Falcon, CO -- called Antler Creekby Rick Phelps is quite good -- ditto Rochelle Ranch in Rawlins, WY by Ken Kavanaugh which is nearly 8,000 yards. High altitude does help when playing them but they are both demanding and fun provided players have substanial game to play the tips.

The main issue for me is not the overall length per se, but that finesse play is part and parcel of the mixture. So often you get long courses and all they do is add another long hole following another. I have come to believe one of Tom Doak's attributes for a great golf course is the inclusion of a few short holes of great challenge and shotmaking.

Bethpage Black used to be rated very highly for me but I have seen the course in a lesser light because of this clear deficiency.

[JMorgan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the correlation direct: longer course = more land = higher land cost = higher fees for the player? 

Especially as good pieces of land get scarcer so either the prime piece of property is expensive to begin with or the less than optimal one requires more earth-moving? 

[Randy Thompson]

8,000 in the altitude is like 7200 in dubai, short holes are great..look at the open this year I think there was five yards difference between a par three and a par four, made players think, back off or play agressively. Great golf!
J.P.
Your formula is somewhat correct but it does not always equal higher cost to the player, depends on the architect for example and the lay of the natural land, soil conditions, avaliabilty of water, local labor cost, availablility of sand ect ect ect. But, i hear where your coming from!

[Jason Topp]

Randy,

From that I think I'd go with others' comments that distance alone is somewhere down the list of what challenges the best players.

I disagree.

I think distance is highest on the list of what challenges all players.  In "Search for the Perfect Golf Swing" as well as many publications that formed the basis for our current handicapping system, studies revealed an almost perfect direct correlation between length and difficulty.  The current course rating system adjusts effective yardage for other difficulty factors but the effect is usually not huge.  Distance is by far the most important factor.

What distance alone does not do, however, is create interesting golf.  

[Jay Flemma]

One thing is clear to me - 7000 yards is too short for back tee players.  If you can't get to 7250, I figure you may as well leave out the back tee and play at 6800, which about 20% of adult male players find adequate.  (Most prefer 6350 yards)

Jeff What about sawgrass?  It didnt top 7000 till just a few years ago and I dont think it's 7100 yet?

[Matt_Cohn]

IF we want the pro's to play a more similar game to what was played in 1950, then yes. I don't think it's a great idea, but you can't really argue that there's any other way.

[TX Golf]

Get to 7250.... How many courses in the top 50 are over 7250. I have no idea but I am guessing less than 30%... and I think we would all consider the others adequate and challenging tests.... However, I know that the top courses in the world are exceptions to the rule.

[Randy Thompson]

Get to 7250.... How many courses in the top 50 are over 7250. I have no idea but I am guessing less than 30%... and I think we would all consider the others adequate and challenging tests.... However, I know that the top courses in the world are exceptions to the rule.

Robert,
How many courses in the top fifty host professional golf tournaments? Granted there are some great test of golf under 7250. If I had to pick a distance, 7250 would be just about right for today to avoid drive wedge and driver sand wedge syndrome. But, if the technology continues to advance as in the past, that may become short quickly. Then what happens when the tees are already backed up to the limit of the property? I guess you hire an archtiect to come in and do some fine tunning like Bill mentions above!

[TX Golf]

Randy,

I am in agreement with a bunch of others on here in that there are many other methods to test the best than with length. All that has proven to do is limit the fields even more. Pebble, Merion, Shinnecock and Southern Hills are all well short of 7250, and considered great venues for the most difficult test in golf. Then you also have Harbor Town, Sawgrass, Colonial, Spyglass, and a handful of others that are all well short of 7250. All very well designed courses that have no problem testing the pros even due to their "limited" length.


Edit: Here are some others that don't host tour events but easily could. These are just a few of the possibilities.

Pine Valley
Seminole
Sand Hills
NGLA
TCC
LACC

[Melvyn Morrow]

Big is not beautiful, length is not that important, as in all things you adjust to the environment or situation.

8,000 yards is simply just plain ridicules. Apart for the Pro and the Want to be’s, the average golfer is just not that interested, if it is going to cost him more.

When will the world wake up and realise that it’s Mr Average who plays and PAYS for it all. If the Pro game is that good then they should play the normal courses, show their skill by adapting. But of course that will not happen – well not yet, but thanks to energy, fuel and water cost increasing clubs, their owners and developers will have to learn. Some the hard way.

I just don’t understand why our Lords & Masters are not actually doing something constructive. Perhaps its time to handicap the Pro’s.

To all of you who advocate long courses, I say, go and play them, also you pay for them and don’t congest the normal courses.

Just a thought, my game in the past included played 36 holes in a day in the UK and enjoyed it, certainly on unfamiliar courses. But 8,000 yard plus courses make it near impossible to play two rounds and in my opinion gives less value for money or pleasure.

No, I am certainly against courses over approx 7,000yards