Is shorter, better?

[Bill_Yates]

Tom,
Shorter isn't always better, but being able to reach greens in regulation and thinking of golf as a "game" is better.

It always seems to happen when Yanks go to the UK, we see the game differently from the way we see it in the U.S.  What you and your colleagues enjoyed was playing the "game" of golf, friendly competition and plenty of birdies.  When we begin to treat golf as a game in the U.S. and not as brain surgery where perfection is demanded from the course and from ourselves and where our almighty handicaps and courses are measured in tenths of a stroke, we will then focus more on beating our opponents rather than beating the course.  Now, our "game" in the U.S. is to find the longest most difficult course and bring it to its knees. I will argue that it is not the length of what you build that makes the difference in whether we enjoy the game, it's how players use what you build.

In the UK they play against each other and in the U.S. we play against the course.  Therefore, when we begin to view golf as an enjoyable game and play more head-to-head matches against another golfer, length should then only matter as a way to handicap the shorter hitter, giving us both equal opportunity to make birdies in friendly competition.  

[Matt_Ward]

When people advocate the idea of shorter courses I have
to say that while the stated intention for the general interest
of the game is clearly present (and certainly has merit on a number of fronts) -- I cannot dismiss out-of-hand the
desire -- likely unknowingly -- to bring the game into a focus from a more self interest standpoint that plays to a person's respective game and its strengths.

People have a tendency to speak from a "we" perspective but the reality is that it's tied just as closely, if not more so, to an "I" basis in many instances IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

Of course, you are a long hitter, so your comments could equally be seen as a phenomenon of self-interest.  Perhaps unknowingly, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Troy Alderson]

TD and all,

In Kennewick Washington, Tri-City Country Club is 4855 from the tips.  Tree lined "through the greens" with bunkers protecting the critical spots.  Each of us would be hard pressed to shoot lower there than any longer course.  Golfers are addicted to length and they do not realize it.

I would like to build a 3 hole golf course on 10 acres, a Par 3, 4, and 5 for me and my golfing friends.  The par 5 is 600 yards, the par 4 is 400 yards, and the par 3 is 200 yards.  A green at each end of the property and another green 400 yards from the first and off to the side creating a dog leg.  The beauty is that the greens can be played from several directions so there is essentially 6 holes on three greens.  No designated tee boxes, just "flat" areas around the greens to hit to the next green of choice.  Much like the Sheep Ranch, but only three greens.  Cut all the grass at 15 to 19 mm except the greens at 3 to 4 mm.  Strategically placed bunkers and trees if any, and a irrigation holding pond off to the side and out of play.  Hire a kid to gang mow the turf once to twice per week, mow the greens yourself in just over an hour and play golf the rest of the day.  

Short can be fun and rewarding, length is for the macho men that think they are Tiger.

Troy

[Bill Gayne]

I haven't read all the responses but it isn't a large part of the answer in the placement of hazards? Short course with well placed hazards for the long hitter maybe more difficult for the long hitter than short hitter.

[JMorgan]

Here's my simple (newbie) stab at this one after thinking about this all day: I would reply that neither shorter nor longer is better; rather, a design that tests the player on many shotmaking levels and stimulates strategic thinking and planning is better -- and I am assuming that by "better," you mean for the golfer's enjoyment and not for the owner/developer of the course, for the environment, for the sport, for ball/equipment manufacturers, etc.  

Bad design is like Hutchinson's whiskey and soda without the whiskey.   There are long courses with good designs that are fun to play and short courses with bad designs that feel like the nine circles (x2).

James M.    

[Chris Moore]

I, too, just returned from the UK after 10 days of golf.  15 rounds in ten days, including two on The Old Course in steady 50 mph winds with gusts up to 70 mph (most fun I've ever had on a golf course).  I heard they closed the bridge from Edinburgh because someone got blown out of the back of a pickup truck.  

Anyway, I have to agree that shorter is better, but only when there are conditions that complement the game such as wind and firm turf.  North Berwick was the longest 6100-yard course I have ever played, with two 450+ par fours going out into the wind that I didn't even try to reach in regulation.  Western Gailes was quite challenging at 6200 as well.

Short and soft just isn't as much fun.  

[JMorgan]

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.

A good example of this US trend from the course annals is the p#$%ing contest that occurred between the owners of Grossingers and the Concord Resort in the Catskills, when the owner of the Concord brought in Joe Finger,Jimmy Demaret, and Jackie Burke, Jr. to design a LONGER course to outdo Grossingers ... and look what happened over the years: both courses languished and were recently picked up out of bankruptcy by Empire Resorts in '04 for $9mil.  Who knows what will happen to them now, but the new press releases still emphasize the 7650 yard length of The Monster.

[George Pazin]

When people advocate the idea of shorter courses I have
to say that while the stated intention for the general interest
of the game is clearly present (and certainly has merit on a number of fronts) -- I cannot dismiss out-of-hand the
desire -- likely unknowingly -- to bring the game into a focus from a more self interest standpoint that plays to a person's respective game and its strengths.

People have a tendency to speak from a "we" perspective but the reality is that it's tied just as closely, if not more so, to an "I" basis in many instances IMHO.

And how exactly do they differ from you touting longer courses?

[Troy Alderson]

Longer is not good for a simple reason, lack of land for affordable golf.  Long courses appear the result of money.  To advocate golf to the masses, we must go short and challenging on small pieces of land.  Long is fine for the tour, but many course owners dream of being a tour stop and build the big one.

I like the move towards 12 hole golf courses close to population centers.  Quick to play, low cost maintenance, low cost to the golfer.

Troy

[ForkaB]

For the broader advancement of the game of golf, shorter is undeniably better.  I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for beginners to try to hack their way around a "modern" course of 7000+ yards with modernistic hazards, even if they play from the forward tees!  As Tom says above, not only are shorter coures more accessible (skill-wise) to the great majority of players, they can be played quickly and enjoyably, which just has to make the game more attractive for repeat play.

It is true that shorter courses can be boring to big hitters, but they also frustrate these players, which is good for deflating their egos.  My home club (par 67, 5472 yards) held a scratch tournament this weekend, and with no wind and soft greens only one of the 44 low handicap players broke par.

There is a need for 7300+ yard courses, given the (lack of) distance control measures by the R&A/USGA, but these courses should be only 1% of the total built.  It saddens me that some of the best pieces of land for golf and a grossly disproportionate amount of the considerable talents of some of the greatest modern day architects of golf are being dedicated to these monstrosities, rather than to courses which will allow the 99% of us to better enjoy and play the game.

Why?

Follow the money, and the egos........

[Darren_Kilfara]

Isn't this thread terribly idealistic? I mean, it's not like the average American golfer is going to be convinced of his stupidity and repent the error of his ways any time soon, is there? I completely agree that shorter is better - but it's all well and good to say that, quite another to convince an American client that a shorter course can work and be marketed successfully.

Cheers,
Darren

[Tom_Doak]

Darren:  I'm still an idealist at heart.  So, thanks.

I've built a few 6,600-yard courses [from all the way back] which have received considerable acclaim, and yet no one has suggested in public that one of their appeals is that they are not back-breakingly long.  [In fact, more attention has been given to the "hidden" tees at Pacific Dunes that would allow it to play longer, than to the fact it isn't very long.]

And the one highly acclaimed course which I built that IS very long, Cape Kidnappers, has frequent challenges to its status because it is TOO LONG and difficult for some people's tastes.

But, I don't really think that it is going to be a new course which smashes the perception that longer courses are somehow more complete.  I think what it would take would be for course operators to move their tee markers up, and for golfers to realize it's more fun playing up there.

Maybe we should promote an "Up Day" where the tee markers are put at 6400 and 6100 yards nationwide.

[John Sabino]

Tom

The short answer to your question (pun intented) is yes, shorter is better. Length has become an obsession as golfers try to prove their manhood through length. Variety is obviously important. Having just played Sand Hills I would comment that the back to back short 7th and 8th holes highlight the fact that short and strategic can often be better. I probably wouldn't want to play 18 holes in a row like that but your instinct is correct.

Joe

[Darren_Kilfara]

I've built a few 6,600-yard courses [from all the way back] which have received considerable acclaim, and yet no one has suggested in public that one of their appeals is that they are not back-breakingly long.  [In fact, more attention has been given to the "hidden" tees at Pacific Dunes that would allow it to play longer, than to the fact it isn't very long.]

A masterpiece will remain a masterpiece, regardless of length - that's certainly the case at Pacific Dunes (even if a minute fraction of golfers may still rebel against the course on account of its lack of length). I think the real issue is how to make shorter courses with ratings between 3 and 6 on the Doak Scale palatable to their target clienteles...

But, I don't really think that it is going to be a new course which smashes the perception that longer courses are somehow more complete.  I think what it would take would be for course operators to move their tee markers up, and for golfers to realize it's more fun playing up there.

Maybe we should promote an "Up Day" where the tee markers are put at 6400 and 6100 yards nationwide.

That's both a really good idea *and* one which could actually be implemented, assuming of course that a cartel of ball and driver manufacturers didn't immmediately try to impose a boycott... (Actually, an "Up Week" would be even better!)

Cheers,
Darren

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe we should see if we can get the Tour to go along with "Up Day".

Of course, the main obstacle we have to overcome is those players who pooh-pooh anyone who plays the up tees.  Americans are all about posting their score, and nothing hurts more than to say you shot 75 and then have a fellow golfer dismiss that score as irrelevant because you didn't play from all the way back.

[rgkeller]

When people advocate the idea of shorter courses I have
to say that while the stated intention for the general interest
of the game is clearly present (and certainly has merit on a number of fronts) -- I cannot dismiss out-of-hand the
desire -- likely unknowingly -- to bring the game into a focus from a more self interest standpoint that plays to a person's respective game and its strengths.

People have a tendency to speak from a "we" perspective but the reality is that it's tied just as closely, if not more so, to an "I" basis in many instances IMHO.

But long drivers are, of course, intellectually pure.

[Kevin Pallier]

Not necessarily - are they more fun ? most definitely.

It depends on what one wants - hence the need for elasticity on a golf course. If one's young, a low handicapper and wants to test their abilties (eg: long irons etc) length may be preferable. If one's middle aged, overweight, a medium HCPer and wants a walk and "just a hit" length probably isn't high in their priorities.

NSW is good example of course in Australia that can be the best of both world's: tough and uncompromising from the back tee markers - much more fun and enjoyable of the forward markers (especially if the wind is blowing).

I'm with Sean - shorter courses tend to make you think more and give you options - longer courses somewhat force you to take driver.

1. I find shorter courses tend to offer more options off the tee especially in f&f conditions.  
2. I also find (and this is critical) that shorter courses tend to have more variety.  
3. Shorter courses are much quicker to play.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Shorter is certainly OK, and I'm a longish hitter for my age. None of the UK courses I've played from the yellow markers lacked challenge, interest, or fun.  Pacific Dunes from the green markers was no pushover in either summer or winter winds.

My issue with length has to do with playing with my wife.  She's a very occassional player and her best (infrequent) drive is 150 yards mostly along the ground.  Five wood maybe 125 yards also mostly along the ground.  It's hard to find courses that I can play around 6500 yards and she can play around 4800 yards or shorter (although even she disdains courses that are 4500 yards; she feels they're too demeaning).  Some American courses with multiple tees sets accomodate this and take the forced carries off the tee out of play for her.  But very few accomodate  players of her shortness.

We'll be in Scotland the week after next and will play maybe 6 rounds.  My recollection of the Scottish courses I've played is that they generally don't have up tees that are significantly shorter than the yellow markers.  I'd like to  play North Berwick, Gullane, Crail, The New Course, Cruden Bay, Dornoch, Tain, Brora.  Can the UK crowd (or others) advise as to which of these would provide the shortest forward tees?  Are there any that would be sub-5000 yards.  The good news is that the courses are firm and fast which suits her ground   game.

[George Pazin]

Because I like to pick on self proclaimed long hitters and low handicappers , I will state my thesis:

Said players tend to evaluate a course on how it should play, given the yardages, rather than by how it does play.

In other words, when they screw up a short approach shot, they still say, well, I only had a wedge into the green, it won't hold up to Tiger Woods, so it must not be great.

As opposed to looking at the result - maybe a poorly played shot, maybe a stiffed wedge - and trying to determine if the course had any part in their performance.

Fire away, Matt!

 

[ForkaB]

Shorter is certainly OK, and I'm a longish hitter for my age. None of the UK courses I've played from the yellow markers lacked challenge, interest, or fun.  Pacific Dunes from the green markers was no pushover in either summer or winter winds.

My issue with length has to do with playing with my wife.  She's a very occassional player and her best (infrequent) drive is 150 yards mostly along the ground.  Five wood maybe 125 yards also mostly along the ground.  It's hard to find courses that I can play around 6500 yards and she can play around 4800 yards or shorter (although even she disdains courses that are 4500 yards; she feels they're too demeaning).  Some American courses with multiple tees sets accomodate this and take the forced carries off the tee out of play for her.  But very few accomodate  players of her shortness.

We'll be in Scotland the week after next and will play maybe 6 rounds.  My recollection of the Scottish courses I've played is that they generally don't have up tees that are significantly shorter than the yellow markers.  I'd like to  play North Berwick, Gullane, Crail, The New Course, Cruden Bay, Dornoch, Tain, Brora.  Can the UK crowd (or others) advise as to which of these would provide the shortest forward tees?  Are there any that would be sub-5000 yards.  The good news is that the courses are firm and fast which suits her ground   game.

Brian

All of the courses you mention above are very ground game friendly, but few of them will have tees much under 5500 yards.  I would suggest that if your wife comes to a hole where her game seems incompatible with the terrain (e.g. the 14th at Dornoch which will require a 100 yard carry even from the forward tees), she just walk to the fairway and tee it up where she feels comfortable.

Rich

PS--I played yesterday at my home course with my 13-year old daughter and did the same and it made the game much more enjoyable for her than if I had forced her to make 100 yard carries over gorse.  As a very wise man once said--"It's only a bloody game!"

R

[Bryan Izatt]

Rich,

Thanks for the advice.  My wife being a type A personality will try to make the 100 yard carry once, but will then walk around.  she doesn't like to lose too many balls.

I guess that not too many women played when most of these courses opened.  Without modern technology all of them must have been very long for the women of the day.  Were the forward tees actually used by men in the early days?

Clearly it's time to get back to Dornoch.  I don't recall the 100 yard carry on Foxy. I do remember the second shot.

Aye, it is just a game, and a fun one at that.  Something that gets lost in the seriousness around here from time to time.

[henrye]

My issue with length has to do with playing with my wife.  She's a very occassional player and her best (infrequent) drive is 150 yards mostly along the ground.  Five wood maybe 125 yards also mostly along the ground.  It's hard to find courses that I can play around 6500 yards and she can play around 4800 yards or shorter (although even she disdains courses that are 4500 yards; she feels they're too demeaning).  Some American courses with multiple tees sets accomodate this and take the forced carries off the tee out of play for her.  But very few accomodate  players of her shortness.

We'll be in Scotland the week after next and will play maybe 6 rounds.  My recollection of the Scottish courses I've played is that they generally don't have up tees that are significantly shorter than the yellow markers.

Brian, I think you make an excellent point.  Your wife sounds like she plays a similar game to my wife's.  I enjoy the variety of the different sets of tees at my club.  On Saturday, my wife and I decided to go out to our club and play 9 holes.  When a certain young member of the club saw our last names on the tee sheet, he decided to join us.  What he didn't know, is that I would be playing with my wife and not my 16-year old son, who happens to be a good junior golfer and hits the ball a fair distance.  My wife plays a similar game to your wife.  I tend to hit my drives about 230 yards.  The young fellow who joined us hits it a mile.  On our 537-yard 2nd, he hit driver, 8 iron.  We had a great time.  I can't imagine what it would have been like if we had to play tees within close proximity to one another.

BTW, last year I played a number of UK courses and only once did they instruct my son and I to play a particular set of tees - at Sunningdale.  Everywhere else, they let us play where we chose.

[ed_getka]

 

 I have to agree that shorter is better, but only when there are conditions that complement the game such as wind and firm turf.

Short and soft just isn't as much fun.  

Chris hit the nail on the head IMO. When I was in Scotland and England I never even looked at the yardage I was playing because I didn't have a choice, and I never felt like I wasn't being challenged by any course I saw on that trip.

Mark Arata listed a bunch of great courses that fit the premise Tom started with.

The other thing is that if there would only be one tee then the longer hitter could just tee off with driver, long iron, or even shorter clubs if they want to challenge themselves with their approach shots. Will they do that? No. Why? Because you would be hard-pressed to find a long hitter who prefers match play, they seem to be more score-obsessed. Just my opinion, no need to crucify me.

[Matt_Ward]

George / Tom, rgkeller, et al:

I never separated myself from what I mentioned. I'm just more outfront about it instead of wrapping oneself around the simon pure motives about the merits of shorter courses.

I just simply wanted to point out that those raising the case for shorter holes / courses are doing it from a "self" desire impulse among the other cogent comments made.

The issue with short hitters is that too often they bemoan length or its emphasis but privately they crave to achieve it. Long hitters can club down -- but sadly for those short knockers the opportunity to "club up" just isn't there -- sorry George.

Before all those "short" people start to retaliate allow me to point out what I have also said ...

1). UK and Ireland likely have more interesting shorter type courses than the "fast food" designs you see here in the States. It would help if more architects here in the States impressed upon would-be developrs that the desire to construct 7,000-yard "Championship" courses is sheer folly and does little to captivate bulk of those playing today.

In the UK and Ireland it also helps that wind and topography play such a pivotal role -- especially for those layouts on or near the coast or water areas.

2). Too many people think they can jump to the back tees because of ego and desire to show they have game when they likely have neither. Blue-tee-itis is alive and well.

3). I see no issue with shorter courses but this fanciful idea that shorter courses will automatically translate into less green fees for the player is sniffing some heavy duty glue. Those charging fees now will likely only pocket the difference or offer the smallest of rebates.

George -- allow me to bust your bubble in defending the wee people off the tee -- I rate on how courses play. Not this inane "should" versus "how it does" play.

George -- there's this silly thinking that long hitters are simply thick-headed owfs who can't appreciate subtle designs and all that comes with them. I do and have said so for a number of courses talked about here on GCA and a good number fly below the grand total of 6,500 yards. One of my favorites in NJ is Morris County GC in Convent Station, NJ. This Seth Raynor design has plenty of unique characteristics and still holds up well -- titanium and pro V1+ balls combined.

The flip side is that power comes early in life -- just read the story of what Jack Grout emphasized to Nicklaus early in his development. Short hitters know full well that power is not in their bags so they have to resort to some defense -- however stretched -- to make up for their inadequacy on that front.

Let me state AGAIN what I see -- power is a function of the game and needs to be brought to bear (and in check with the circumstances) when playing.

I'm all in favor of interesting designs -- I don't see the benchmark of setting a particular overall distance as being the be-all / end-all.