Is shorter, better?

[Tom_Doak]

I have just returned from ten days in the UK.  While most of the time was spent working on the site of the Renaissance Club at Archerfield, and taking my son around the local sights, I did play five rounds of golf -- three up north at Dornoch/Brora/Tain, and two evening rounds in North Berwick, one each on the east and west links.  Only one of those matches, by the way, took more than three hours to complete, and that was at Dornoch where we were playing behind a large group.

All of these rounds were played as matches in the company of various associates, from the "yellow boxes" to which visitors are relegated, so we played all the courses between 6,000 and 6,400 yards.  And we had a blast.  Many holes were won with birdies, although if you got into trouble a double bogey was also there to be had, up against the face of a pot bunker or something.  The guys who played the best golf almost always won, but I think it was a lot more fun for one of my young associates to shoot 73 from the middle tees at Royal Dornoch than to shoot 76 from the back.

Which leads me to wonder why the hell we all build such long courses in the USA.  No, we don't always have the element of wind to add interest and difficulty to our courses, and that does make a difference -- the wind nearly always makes some medium par-4's play quite testing.

Our course at Archerfield is actually one of the longest we've built, because they have designs on hosting an event someday.  I guess it will be a good contrast with the other courses in the vicinity.  But if most courses are intended for a fun experience, I think the focus on length has really gotten the better of us.

[Voytek Wilczak]

A shorter, fun, sporty, less intimidating course will bring more people to the game, including women.

I think the length of the new courses (and their "championship" aspirations) may be hurting the game overall.

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
  Personally I agree with you...often times I have a lot better time shooting a good score for me from a 6500 yard set of tees than I do trying to survive from 7200. I've gotten into the habit of playing farther back, and have the length to handle it (some days!) but I have a better time managing things from farther up, and its certainly a lot of fun.

  The one nice thing about US courses that have a lot of tees, is that I can play the different sets and it makes a big difference as to how I have to approach the course. At my home course its probably a 4-5 shot difference normally.

[D_Malley]

this is with out a doubt the case.  if building a golf course is about the average golfer having fun, which in most cases it should be, then the optimum length should be under 6200.  my course is a 1926 design that plays to a max of about 5800 and it is probably the most popular public course in the area.  with a recent bunker re-do by Jim Wagner.  check it out

www.paxonhollowgolf.com

[Jerry Kluger]

Tom: I have to believe that a great deal of it has to do with the weather.  If the course is seaside and often has windy conditions then length is not as critical.  I recently played Stone Eagle and the first round we didn't play all the way back and we really enjoyed it as we really didn't feel pressed to hit it as far as possible.  I played my second round with three guys who can really hit it hard and we played from the tips.  For me the course was all I could handle and more, but for the other guys, they were just looking to overpower the course and for the most part they did.  With benign weather conditions the course simply could not defend itself against a big hitter who could just blow it by all the trouble and face short irons into the greens.  

[Dan Kelly]

Which leads me to wonder why the hell we all build such long courses in the USA.  No, we don't always have the element of wind to add interest and difficulty to our courses, and that does make a difference -- the wind nearly always makes some medium par-4's play quite testing.

Don't greens of character -- and well-placed fairway hazards -- always add sufficient interest and difficulty, regardless of the wind (or lack thereof)?

I don't think shorter is necessarily better -- but it sure as hell can be. And it's usually more FUN. (That Newport Country Club course they're playing today looks like outstanding fun, from the tees they're playing.)

Why do we build such long courses? Perhaps to accommodate the young and strong?

Does any good ever come of kowtowing to the young and strong?

[Brent Hutto]

To answer the title question...for me shorter is better.  But I think there are plenty of players for whom a little more length is good.

There are members of my club who hit the ball "far and sure" much better than they can control their trajectory or chip and putt. If they play the course at about 6,600 yards most of the Par 5's are reachable with anywhere from a solid fairway wood shot down to a well-struck 4-iron, depending on how long a drive they happened to hit. So they set about each round thinking about those Par 5's which the 6-handicappers expect to play in a couple under par with at least one good putt at an eagle somewhere along the way. That looks like a pretty fun game to me.

Move them up to the 6,200 yard tees and most of those Par 5's just become long Par 4's, including a couple with water in front of the green. Driver, mid-iron and feeling like you've given away a shot if you make a five isn't nearly as much fun as driver followed by a "can I get on with an iron or should I try and stop a wood without going over the back" decision after a good tee shot. A lot of the "sporty" features that some of us enjoy come into play at the greenside end when there's an option of bouncing the ball in or some tricky contours to be utilized. And if we're talking quirky contours internal to adjacent to the greens, that's not the first preference of someone who can hit drivers and 5-irons like a scratch player but who has hands of stone like a 10-capper when it comes to getting the ball in the hole. I have met plenty of mid single digit players with that kind of game.

So the answer is that variety is better. I think the point is well taken in terms of why we don't have more excellent local 6,300 yard courses being built in this country. There is a great imbalance in favor of courses that appeal the guy who can routinely be putting or chipping for eagle on a 530-yard hole.

[TaylorA]

I have to agree with Jerry. If the playing conditions are benign, then the course needs to be long. I've played my share of 6,000 yard courses and the holes get repetitive quickly. I'm not that long of a hitter either - a few guys I play with have nothing left into a par 4 under 380 yards. Even par 4s under 420 are wedges now.

I don't want to take this off topic, but I fear the game of golf is in trouble if something doesn't happen with the ball.

The course I posted about earlier, Nagawaukee, is 6500 yards from the middle tees. 7 years ago, it was a good test even for a long hitter. However, most hazards aren't in play today. My friends who were long by 1999 standards haven't gotten stronger and most haven't changed clubs...

Maybe a new, well designed course could be interesting at 6,500 yards even for the long hitter. But the greens would have to be fairly challenging, I would think.

It would also help if people played the appropriate tees too. Almost every course can be played in the 6,200-6,500 yard range. Maybe courses could close the back tees on busy days?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom I didn't expect you'd get much argument with this on here.  I think you should register with BombSquad.com and get their views on this.   They all want to be like the better player in Jerry's group who can blow short courses away.  Try and tell them that fun lies elsewhere and if you believe in the market you'll see it favours 'them'  over 'us'.

I'm not knocking them, I just think we'd all learn more from their responses rather than ours.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tom, I spent two weeks in Englad this past spring and played twenty courses.  Not only were the courses between 5800-6500 yards from the back tees. Some even played to a par of 69.  I didn't score any better on those courses than I did on my clubs at home that measure 6800 yards from the regular tees.  And you are right they played in less than three hours.

This past week I played to new Nicklaus courses at the beach in Delaware.  From the back they measure 7500 and 7300 yards respectively.  It was silly.  The fairways were 60 yards wide but didn't make any difference where you were on the faierway because the angles offered little difference to the second shot because the greens were huge.  One course, Bayside, was fun, but eh other, Peninsula, was just plain boring.  Give me a more interesting shorter course any day.

[Gary Daughters]

Shorter IS better, and I've tanked my last round from the "golds."  From here on in I swallow my pride and let the bombers do as they please.

Tom D --

Glad to know you're on the Tain bandwagon

Admirers talk about the 15th green.  I think it's the frumps and bumps in the fairway that make that little hole what it is.

[Tim Pitner]

Tom, I was at Bandon in mid-June.  Our practice in the past was to play the black tees in the morning and move up to the greens in the afternoon.  This year, because we had a higher handicap in the group, we decided to play all rounds from the green markers.  I have to say I was a little hesitant to do this because I was concerned that some holes--like #2 at PD where the bunkers wouldn't be in play off the tee--might play shorter than their optimal length.  

Just for more perspective, I would say that two of our players (including me) are medium-long hitters and our fourth is quite long.  It turned out that my concerns were unwarranted.  The courses were a blast from that length (6100-6300 yards) and some holes, such as PD #6 and BT #14, probably played better at that length because driving the green (or at least coming very close) became a real option.  Playing at that length also brought in a lot more options off the tee.  It wasn't driver everytime without thinking.  

Obviously, the courses at Bandon are more similar to the UK courses than are most in the U.S.  They have wind and they have the sort of greens, bunkers and fairway contours that make golf interesting at any length.  Not all courses have this.  Still, I would have to agree--shorter (especially with sufficient features) is better.  

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:  Yes, the par was another thing.  The courses were:

Royal Dornoch, 6229 from the yellow boxes, par 70.  [6679 all the way back]
Brora, 6110/5872, par 69.
Tain, 6404/6109, par 70.  (After Brora in the a.m., this seemed long!)
North Berwick West Links, 6456/6033, par 70.
Glen Golf Club (East Links), 6321/6082, par 70.

I'm also going to jump all over the next person who tells me that most of the greens in Scotland are flat.  Out of 90 greens we saw there were a handful of flat ones, and some really wild ones, too.

[Scott Witter]

Tom:

Of the other venues in the UK where "events" are held...are they longer as you infer the Renaissance Club will be?  As far as I know they are not.  So why make this one in Archerfield longer?

Yes, overall the USA does tend to promote courses that are too long, but not all of us.  Two years ago one of my new courses opened up at 6750 yds, Par 72 from the back.  Last summer, they held a regional qualifier for the US Mens Senior Open there with a field of 52.  Only 4 holes are cut into the woodlands, all others are totally open to the elements (we have some serious prevailing winds here in western NY) with tall fescues as secondary rough between the holes.  Unfortunately, this was a hot day with no wind, however, only 5 players broke par, one 68, one 69, two 70's and one 71.

TaylorA:  This course was benign during the qualifier with respect to the normal playing conditions, there was no wind, it was hot, and they could throw darts...but they didn't.

[D_Malley]

should courses be designed strictly to be a challenge for the player who hits a tee ball 250+, which accounts only for 10% of all golfers?  Or should they be designed for the masses which is the other 90% of players.  i realize that through multiple teeing options both can be achieved, with the assumption that players will always choose the correct tee for their ability.  which i find is rarely the case.  if we want to keep growing the game, and stop people from quiting the game, golf courses need to be designed with the 90% in mind not the 10%

[TEPaul]

Is shorter better?

TomD:

I'd say not necessarily. I don't think I'd come down on the side of short or long or even medium, but what I would come down on the side of (obviously considering whata ay site is all about) is elasticity. Obviously elasticity gives any golf course the latitude to do whatever they want to at any time and also into the future.

Only problem, as you well know, is elasticity isn't so simple to find or design on any and every hole and in the end it can massively complicate (or compromise) the routing and the routing process.

[Phil McDade]

One of the tougher courses I played in Scotland -- and not a links -- was the 5,866-yard, par 69 Boat of Garten. What made it tough? Smallish greens -- on the order of 25 yards deep, with some as little as 20 yards deep. Usually a bunker or two on the frontish sides of the greens, pinching approach shots. Hilly terrain, with many approaches to greens elevated above the fairways. Bumpy fairways, often leading to uneven stances and lies. A great variety of lengths for approach shots -- par 4s ranging from 271 yards to (uphill) 437 yards. And -- yes -- tight driving on nearly every hole (though offset somewhat by absolutely no fairway bunkers); the course is cut out of a forest of silver birch trees, and it does put demands on accuracy off the tees. All in all, a very tough track under 6,000 yards (although I hear they may be adding -- or have already -- a par 5 to lengthen it and bring par up to 70.) Some junior golfers I ran into in Scotland viewed it as one of the hardest competition courses they played.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I believe your premise comes from a bit of self interest -- as is always the case with those who don't hit the ball far. Power is most certainly a part of the game and clearly has a role to play.

You also pointed out a fact with the wind velocity you encounter when playing many courses in the UK -- particularly those set along or very near the coast. When you have a 2+ club wind you can get all sorts of different situations that easily refute the idea that a 380-400 yard hole is easy.

No doubt the bulk of most golfers would likely have a far greater fun time playing courses from within the yardage distances you cite.

Keep in mind the totality of the architecture you find in the UK for courses of a shorter distance is also quite a bit more advanced than your run-of-the-mill 6,200 yard American layout.

[Dave Bourgeois]

I would have to agree that shorter is better for the vast majority of players.  I see it as the shorter the course the more choices one has to make in terms of shot selection, strategy, and management of the course.  

In my opinion many courses designed to be long become one dimensional to average player in terms of the shots that need to be executed (Bethpage Black is a good example of this).  This is of course if they choose the wrong set of tees.  

I wouldn't argue that courses should be short for the sake of it, but to make up for the length in difficulty around the greens, and having well placed hazards.  Again, this brings thinking back into the game instead of hitting driver hybrid all day.

I'd love to hear from others about the fun factor at a place like Merion compared to Winged Foot. Is that a good comparison?

[Voytek Wilczak]

...those who don't hit the ball far.

99% (or therebouts) of golfers don't.

[Matt_Ward]

Voytek:

Agreed.

Just one thing though -- it's a good percentage of these players you mention who have "Blue-Tee-Itis" and insist upon playing courses from lengths which their respective games cannot handle.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

So, does it make sense to you to use 15% more real estate and raise the costs the same to cater to that 1% of golfers who hit the ball farther and need the extra challenge? -- and, in the process, tempt 25-50% of golfers to play the course from too far back, slowing up play for everyone in the process?

Or would that same real estate be better used for something like the children's courses we saw at Gullane and North Berwick?

In the case of the East Links at North Berwick, my opponent was a guy who'd played college golf for four years at Wake Forest, and drives the ball pretty far.  He was still enjoying the hell out of the course.  Maybe you would, too.  Length is its own reward and it is generally an advantage even on shorter courses.

[Jim Thompson]

All of these rounds were played as matches in the company of various associates, from the "yellow boxes" to which visitors are relegated, so we played all the courses between 6,000 and 6,400 yards.  

Which leads me to wonder why the hell we all build such long courses in the USA.  No, we don't always have the element of wind to add interest and difficulty to our courses, and that does make a difference -- the wind nearly always makes some medium par-4's play quite testing.

But if most courses are intended for a fun experience, I think the focus on length has really gotten the better of us.

I often find myself asking the same questions.  Just yesterday we had a guest from Indiana come up and shoot 105 from our black tees at 6749.  His comments after the round were all about how tough the course was but how good a time he had.  I guess he was happy to get kicked in the teeth for almost five hours.  Sadly, the group after him came in and all they could talk about was how this guy in front of them was on the wrong set of tees and they watched him hunt for topped tee shots all day.  I think it is a uniquely American disease that makes players say I need to play this or that tee like I either A used to or B see them play on TV or C so I can hit my new $500 dollar driver 14 times a round.  Our tees run 7169, 6749, 6232, 5558, and 4845.  Conventional wisdom would be to just close the tips to speed up lay, but I think the problem lives in those that insist upon playing 6749 when they should be at 6232.  So how do we get the 20 hdcp to play at 6400-6000 yards?  Is it cultural or design?  Would it be wiser to eliminate the 6749 and 5558 tees all together in our case?

Cheers!

JT

[Tim Pitner]

...those who don't hit the ball far.

99% (or therebouts) of golfers don't.

I don't know about 1%.  I suppose we'll have to quantify what "far" means.  With oversized, titanium drivers, a lot of people I know, even some who aren't particularly good players, drive it 250+ yards.  Now, if we're talking about really long, say 280-300, then yes, I would agree with 1%.  Of course, none of this undermines Tom Doak's argument, but let's not get carried away.  

[Ron Farris]

Golf is a game of discipline.  People love to hit their driver and it clearly is fun to blast away at short par 4 holes.  If one expects to play well they have to exercise discipline and often use a club other than the driver.  I play a hole every morning (that I can) that is a 298 yard par 4.  My playing partner lays up with a hybrid club.  I go for it everytime.  We are about 50-50 on who wins the hole.  For us it is a matter of personality.  Also it depends on whether it is a Friendly Match or a Serious Event.  Personally I favor a short course with an interesting design over a long course with uninteresting design aspects.