Can a golf course under 6,400 offer an intersesting, yet challenging test

[Phil Benedict]

JES,

Of course it's doable with the right wind and topography.  But the broader issue is that strong players are getting at least 25 yards from modern equipment versus balata and persimmon.  Translated over 14 driving holes, that's 350 yards.  I know you don't have to hit driver on every par 4 but even if it's only 10 holes, it adds up to 250 yards.  To me 6400 with old technology is really equivalent to about 6700 yards with modern equipment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The average age of the membership is over 70, which is probably why there is no pressure to lengthen the member tees.

That's not true.
Where did you get that statistic from ?

In addition, the number of very good golfers at ANGC is high.
Unless you don't consider Nicklaus, Harris, Ridley, Dunne and many others to be very good golfers[/color]

I can't address your specific comments about 7, 11 and 18, but it's fair to say that in most cases approach clubs would be short irons or wedges.

Here are the clubs I hit into every green last week.
It was very cool with winds out of the west and some of the holes played from behind the Member yardage marker.
My back was bothering me so I took one club extra on almost every shot.

1  4 and 5 iron
2  L-wedge from 40 and L-wedge from greenside bunker
3  7-iron
4  3-iron
5  3 and 5 iron
6  5-iron
7  wedge
8  Sand wedge
9  7 and 9 iron

10 4 and 5-iron
11 6 and 7 iron
12 6 -iron
13 Sand wedge
14 3-iron and 5 iron
15 7 iron and sand wedge
16 5 iron
17 7 and 9 iron
18 2 iron and 3-wood

What happened to your Driver and Wedge theory ?
I could have used it, but, then I'd have to hit another wedge before begining to putt.

Those who have played with me can draw their own conclusions with respect to how the golf course plays.[/color]

They have added lots of trees to 7 and 11 which may dictate using something other than a driver from the member tees.
It does, but, I hit my driver straighter than my 3-wood, so I used driver on those holes.[/color]

I'm sure Augusta would be fun for anyone to play from the member tees.  But we're talking about Augusta National, not some every day course no one has ever heard of.  The original question was general.

I could have used Montclair as an example, but, it's a par 70 golf course.[/color]

To me, the issue is whether a course set up can be consistently interesting if there is limited variety in terms of approach clubs.  That's tough to get with a 6400 yard par 72.


For who ?

At a club I'm familiar with, it's barely 6,500 from the BACK tees and yet only two golfers broke 80 in qualifying for the club championship.

I've been playing that golf course for 50 years and it still retains its interest and challenge.[/color]

[Jason Topp]

I think the criteria for judging whether a short course offers an interesting, challenging test are as follows

1.  Difficult challenge, without making it unplayable for most
2.  Variety of distances for approach shots
3.  Reward long, accurate drives

For what it is worth, our back nine is about 3200 yards with some difficult greens to hit and putt.  

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/mhctopp.html

Testing it against the criteria:

1.  Difficult challenge, playable for all

It definitely meets these criteria.  Penalty strokes are rare and it provides a challenging test for scratch golfers.  In a competition last year, with contestants ranging from among the best state level players (+2 or so) to 7 handicappers (most in the 2-5 range) the average score was 41.6, about a stoke higher than the longer front nine.    The wind was in the prevailing direction at 15 miles per hour, so a bit stronger than average.  One under qualified for the US Amateur in 2004.

2.  Variety of approach shots.

The yardage does limit variety for long hitters.  In particular, it seems difficult to have holes at lengths that would require good players to hit middle irons.

I'm probably 15-20 yards behind most of the contestants off the tee.  If all goes well, I hit 4 wedges, long hitters might hit 6.  Thus, there are a lot of wedges to severely sloped greens.  Fun shots if you are on, but, if you are not, you aim below the hole on some shots from 100 yards.  
 
The list below has the hole number, my normal club after a good tee shot and the average score in the competition.  The holes with an asterix have severe greens.  

10   340 par 4*  (wedge)(4.7)
11   217 par 3. (3 wood)(3.9)
12   420 par 3*  (7 iron)(4.6)(downhill, downwind)
13   340  par 4* (wedge)(4.9)
14   540 par 5 * (wedge) (5.6)(uphill, into wind)
15   365 par 4 * (wedge)(4.4)(downhill, downwind)
16   170 par 3  (5 iron)(3.6)
17   385 par 4*  (7 iron)(4.9)(into wind, uphill 2nd)
18   435 par 4  (4 iron) (4.9)


3.  Rewards long accurate driving

I think this nine does that well.  Driver is never taken out of ones hand.  10 and 15 can be driven with a drive that carries 280 and is hit precisely on line.  A player with that length can also reach 14 in two.

[Phil Benedict]

Patrick,

During the Martha Burke controversy someone published the membership list of ANGC.  At that time, the average age was over 70.  It may have changed.  My guess is the member tees are fine for most players.

Changing from par 72 to 70 makes a huge difference.  On the template course I proposed, the average par 4 would go up from 380 yards to 400 yards.  This would give an architect a lot more flexibility in designing approach options on the par 4's.

I know you are a good player but I have no idea how far you hit the ball, so I can't comment on your approach clubs.

I belong to a club that is par 69 and around 6100 yards from the whites and used to be about 6350 from the blues (now its more like 6500 from the blues).  My guess is that at least 75% of the members play the whites, which are basically equivalent to a par 72 at 6400 yards (figuring 100 yards per par 5).  So I guess you are right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

I've never understood why golfers want to torture themselves by playing a golf course beyond their abilities.

I can see it happening occassionally, but, why do it day in and day out ?

Is it the "Macho" drive kicking in.
Or, is it the emphasis on distance, the love of the home run ball ?

It's my understanding that in the UK most visitors are prohibited from playing the championship tees.
This sounds like a sound policy.
How many golfers can handle 7,200+ yards ?
Yet, an inordinate number want to try it so that they can say they played ______ from the tips, just like the PGA Tour pros did.

[Phil Benedict]

Pat,

I couldn't agree with you more.  When I play resort golf I generally choose tees in the 6600-6800 range, but I never go over 7000 yards because I ain't good enough.  At the tees I play I rarely need more than a mid-iron to approach the par 4's.  At resort courses the par 4's usually top out at around 430 from the tees I play, which is within my capability.  I have no interest in playing a bunch of 465 yard par 4's.

I also agree that 6400 yards par 72 is fine for the vast majority of players, even low handicappers who don't bomb the ball.  For a young whippersnapper who bombs it, I think you need a little bit more length.

At my home course I prefer the back tees not so much because of the overall length but because they change the character of 3 or 4 holes for the better.  

[Phil McDade]

Phil:

Lawsonia's 6,466 yards play to a par of 72 without resorting to gimmicky lengths in offering a variety of hole lengths. It has a somewhat unconventional set-up -- 8 par 4s, 5 par 3s, and 5 par 5s.

Its par 4s go 407 (semi-blind drive dogleg), 422 (wholly blind drive dogleg), 367 (dogleg with a mean trap at the corner), 406 (mostly blind drive downhill , 322 (mostly blind drive with lots of options and visual deception), 379, 435 semi-blind drive uphill) and 363 (over flat terrain, but with two large pinching fairway bunkers). My guess is that a very good player could still play driver on most of these, as the course's fairways offer plenty of width on most of the holes. But with the exacting nature of the course's green complexes, proper placement on the fairway can dictate the ease or difficulty of the approach shot.

The par 3s offer great variety -- 175 (uphill, often into the wind, easily a club or two more), 146 (a real target short hole), 217 uphill, 171 (over flat terrain, to a wide but shallow sloping green), and 139 (probably the most benign of the par 3s).

The par 5s go 475, 529, 482, 556, and 475, so one could argue a low handicapper can rack up some good scores on them. But, even the par 5s under 500 yards offer some degree of strategic merit -- the tee shots and approach shots on both of the 475 yarders need to take into consideration a combination of trees, fairway bunkers, and even OB for the long hitters.

Its

[Tom_Doak]

I have not read all 83 responses but of the ones I did read, no one has mentioned Rye Golf Club in England.  It was exactly 6301 yards when I played it years ago, and the par of 68 had never been broken in stroke play competition ... although they only played stroke play competitions once a year.

[Tom Huckaby]

TD - Rye did spring to mind, but Pat was asking about par 72s so I didn't mention it; I'd guess others did the same.  From all I've heard that course can CERTAINLY hold its head high in the difficulty conversation.

Of course I also cheated and mentioned Pasatiempo with it's par 70, but heck that's been more than that at different stages in its existence anyway.

TH

[Phil Benedict]

Phil:

Lawsonia's 6,466 yards play to a par of 72 without resorting to gimmicky lengths in offering a variety of hole lengths. It has a somewhat unconventional set-up -- 8 par 4s, 5 par 3s, and 5 par 5s.

Its par 4s go 407 (semi-blind drive dogleg), 422 (wholly blind drive dogleg), 367 (dogleg with a mean trap at the corner), 406 (mostly blind drive downhill , 322 (mostly blind drive with lots of options and visual deception), 379, 435 semi-blind drive uphill) and 363 (over flat terrain, but with two large pinching fairway bunkers). My guess is that a very good player could still play driver on most of these, as the course's fairways offer plenty of width on most of the holes. But with the exacting nature of the course's green complexes, proper placement on the fairway can dictate the ease or difficulty of the approach shot.

The par 3s offer great variety -- 175 (uphill, often into the wind, easily a club or two more), 146 (a real target short hole), 217 uphill, 171 (over flat terrain, to a wide but shallow sloping green), and 139 (probably the most benign of the par 3s).

The par 5s go 475, 529, 482, 556, and 475, so one could argue a low handicapper can rack up some good scores on them. But, even the par 5s under 500 yards offer some degree of strategic merit -- the tee shots and approach shots on both of the 475 yarders need to take into consideration a combination of trees, fairway bunkers, and even OB for the long hitters.

Its

Phil,

A strong player like JES II would be hitting wedges or short irons to virtually all the par 4's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

The reason that long hitters or very low handicap players might need a longer course has more to do with the placement of the DZ features/hazards than anything else.

What's interesting about ANGC is that some of the hazards (fairway bunkers) are extended, thus, they come into play for long and short hitters alike.

GCGC has a few long trench bunkers such as the one on the right side of # 3.  That feature seems to offset the distance element since the golfer rarely escapes its grasp.

In the face of no apparent cap on distance, are long trench bunkers paralleling the fairway the hazard/feature of the future ?

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,

The reason that long hitters or very low handicap players might need a longer course has more to do with the placement of the DZ features/hazards than anything else.

What's interesting about ANGC is that some of the hazards (fairway bunkers) are extended, thus, they come into play for long and short hitters alike.

GCGC has a few long trench bunkers such as the one on the right side of # 3.  That feature seems to offset the distance element since the golfer rarely escapes its grasp.

In the face of no apparent cap on distance, are long trench bunkers paralleling the fairway the hazard/feature of the future ?

Pat,

It's unfortunate if long fairway bunkers become a commonplace design feature.  They lack subtlety and are easier for top players to recover from.  Small bunkers are much more of a hazard, don't you think?  By definition you are more likely to be close to the lip in a small bunker.  The problem is that placement is tough when distances keep changing.  I think the new bunkers at ANGC extend out to 320 yards from the Masters tees.

I suppose making them really long is "fair" in the sense that an off-line drive by Mike Weir is just as likely to end up in the bunker as one by Tiger Woods.  After all, should Tiger be penalized because he can reach a bunker that others can't?

This new equipment is really vexing isn't it?  Having said that, I'm demo-ing some drivers this weekend to try to find the right shaft in my search for the perfect ball flight!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Phil,

Nothing says that a long bunker has to be straight.

You're correct that small bunkers tend to bring the face more into play, thus impeding extracation.  Perhaps serpentine like designs will become the rage.   Where is Desmond Muirhead when you need him.

I like long trench bunkers.

Not everywhere, but, on a random footing.
And, if the use of water is being highly restricted, innovative bunker design will have to fill the gap.