[David_Elvins]

With modern equipment (balls and clubs), the golf ball is now travelling alot further.  In response to this, modern courses are designed alot longer than their golden age couterparts. (And older courses are being lengthened).  

I think this topic has been addressed once or twice on this site.  

With modern equipment (balls and clubs), the golf ball is now travelling alot straighter.  There has been, as far as I am aware (and I would be happy to be proven wrong), no reaction to this in the design of golf courses.  Why not?

Why arent greens on modern courses smaller than those made previously?  
Why arent fairways narrower than those made previously?
What is the point of having cool short game options around the green when tour player or the good club player is averaging 15-18 greens in regulation per round?

By the way, when I talk about narrow fairways and small greens, I am not talking about penal design, I love angles but should they be straightened out in modern design to be made compatible with modern equipment?

So in summary: Why the big reaction to the added length that modern equipment gives, but no reaction to the added accuracy?

[Tim Weiman]

David Elvins:

Very few golfers are able to hit more than a couple fairways per round.

Very few golfers are able to hit more than a couple greens per round.

Most people who play golf struggle with accuracy evenr more than length.

We don't need longer courses. We don't need courses with less width.

Your proposal would only make the game more frustrating and less enjoyable for most people.

[David_Elvins]

Tim Weiman,

I wasn't making a proposal, merely asking a series of questions.    I just find it interesting that the increased length of equipment has been addressed by architects in spades (rightly or wrongly) whereas nothing has been done about the increased  accuracy of equipment.  

I was just curious as to whether anyone had any theories as to why.  I wasn't intending to rehash old ground about how 90% of golfer dont need a course over 6000 yards or whatever you always say.  My idea of a good golf course is one that is playable, challenging and enjoyable for ALL levels of golfer.  I dont think a long golf course neccesarily alienates the average golfer -its all in the design.  Likewise, I am wondering, if anyone has any interesting design principles suggesting that a laterally smaller golf course could infact prove interesting, challenging and playable for all level of golfers.

Most modern greens are larger than golden age greens? Do you agree?  Does this make sense given the increase accuracy of equipment?  

[Peter Galea]

Greens are larger because of increased traffic and lower cutting heights. It's agronomic and not strategic.

[A.G._Crockett]

One reason for NOT having small greens is the limited number of hole locations as a result makes turf and compaction problems much worse.  On a large green, holes can be cut in locations that save the turf in the center of the green until the weekend, when pace of play becomes more important.  It also allows supers to funnel traffic away from distressed areas of the green in times of tough weather conditions.
As to narrow fairways, the main consideration would be pace of play.  There is a geometric increase in the number of shots taken if the tee shot is in the rough--dominos fall all the way until the ball is holed out, including looking longer for a $3.50 golf ball lost in the rough!

[Tim Weiman]

David Elvins:

I think concern about trying to satisfy "ALL levels
of golfers" is misguided. Too often those are code words for trying to satisfy elite players.

It's time to take a more progressive approach and stop worrying about "tour plays and good club players".

The last thing most golfers need is more length or less width.

I'm amazed that people can't see that.

[SL_Solow]

The assumptions made in your post are incorrect.  While a "hot " player may hit that many greens, statistically no one on the male tour averages near 15 greens.  Moreover, smaller greens lead to fewer putts and easier recoveries.  Thus th hot player may benefit even more.  The tougher issue is the lack of interesting greens caused in part by the need to decrease gradient to accomodate faster green speeds.  Large greens with mutiple interesting pin positions giving rise to the need to approach from the correct angle will provide a good defense against top players while allowing all levels an opportunity to enjoy their round.

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
There are a two clubs near me that have very small greens. One was built in the twenties, Number two was built before the turn of the century. One is very compact but keeps its fairways wide, fairway/greenside rough at max. 2 inches but has a couple of holes where the surrounds are mown at fairway heights and it also keeps all its approaches at this same height. Course number two, although more expansive, has adopted a plan which has narrowed its fairways considerably, lets rough grow across the fairways to curtail longer hitters,  took its greenside rough to 3+inches and narrowed its approaches.

The bad/fair/good/better/best players at number one all enjoy their course.
There is major grumbling amongst the less skilled at course two. It never used to be this way before the changes.
  

[David_Elvins]

Tim,

When I was talking about "All level of golfers", I was actually thinking of the other end of the scale.  If a course has wide playing areas, no forced carries off tees and open fronted greens, then it is playable for all level of golfer, no matter what the length of the course, isnt it?

Pete and AG Crocket
Good point about the turf, wasnt even thinking about practicalities like that.

SL Solow
You are dead right. I shouldnt pull numbers out of thin air like that.

Jim Kennedy

Three inch rough everywhere is not my idea of fun golf.  What I am interested to know is whether the small greens on "course one" place an emphasis on strategic angles from the fairway or not.  How do you think it compares in this regard to similar courses with larger greens?  Oh, and I probably should have asked everyone this earlier, what is your definition of small or large greens? Thanks

[Bob_Huntley]

Larger greens do not necessarily provide more pin positions. Raynor's greens at MPCC Dunes course were very small and reasonably flat. The greens after Rees Jones re-do, are rather large. Because of the nature of the new greens with their undulations I find that  there are no more or varied pin positions than before.

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
The first course, on less land, has fewer angles due to its compact nature although I have unintentionally played several holes from other fairways and these angles have all offered a way at the pin.
The second course has much more room but chooses to ignore it. It cuts into the options considerably.

Many of the greens on either course are less than 20 paces across or deep.  

[SL_Solow]

Bob Huntley,  Small flat greens don't sound like a solution to the initial "problem" posed by this thread.  etter players will eat them up(generically, this is not a comment on MPCC pre Rees).  Nor will they create greater interest for the handicap player.  So even assuming equal numbers of pin positions, which would you prefer.  Remember MacDonald's comparison between greens on golf courses to faces on portraits; diminishing the central focus of the hole is not likely to improve the hole or the course.

[s33m3rock]

in my opinion if anything fairways should be getting larger. With the technology pros are hitting it further, encouraging amatures to have a swipe at it and do impersonations of sprinklers. I would prefer to see skinny fairways, but large ones make more sence

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Good question and interesting answers.  Are we being placated by the architects or the profiteers?  

[Craig Van Egmond]

Many of the courses I have played  really have greens within greens.  The greens may be large but they have very distinct sections to them and if you want to score you have to be in that section, so while the greens may be large the actual target area is small.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()