[Joe Hancock]

Mark Fine is 10000% correct -- 6,500 yards is more than enough game for most and with the person designing such a layout can still prove to be a worthy challenge for nearly all handicap types.

And yet, over and over here, you hear higher handicap guys who want all the challenges that are in place to keep the low handicap folks busy....so why not length as well as bunkers and hills and valleys and water.....

You sound like you think the architects have more control over projects than they really do. Maybe a couple times a year there is a project somewhere that affords an architect or two the freedom to really direct the end result, as it pertains to commonly accepted configurations. Pitch this wonderful idea to the money behind the projects, and the architects will gladly step out of their comfort zones and design shorter, interesting golf courses.

This will sound pissy (and it probably is, a little!), but it is in the context of this discussion; In 2005, a golf course opened in Grand Rapids, MI. called the Mines GC. It is a par 70, 6700-ish yard daily fee with bluegrass fairways, bunkerless holes scattered throughout. It embodies many of the attributes that get pondered upon by this discussion group often; interesting greens with plenty of internal contouring, ground play options, wide fairways, diagonal carries, etc. Yet, it apparently isn't what you guys will travel for, save a couple of hardy souls.(The Mines did 24,000 starts(9's and 18's) in 2007) I state this to illustrate my original response to this idea: why? If you guys don't want it, who does? How would you go about convincing an investor to do a project like this when you are armed with the facts of what the market wants?

Don't misread what I'm saying. I like the idea of shorter, interesting, less expensive golf. It just isn't in demand yet, here or elsewhere.

Joe

[Mark_Fine]

What percent of golf rounds do most people think are played from beyond 6500 yards?  The number might astound some of us    Furthermore, if we looked at the number that "should" be played from beyond 6500 yards it would minuscule.  Architects are designing long courses for a very small percentage of golfers who can and should play back there.  

[paul cowley]

While we are at it....how about building courses that are 6500 yds, but par 68 or 69's?

*note....this question doesn't require an answer because I already know what it will be.

Paul

It sounds strange, but I do reckon sub par 70 courses at 6500 yards (or even a bit less) would be a great direction for architecture to head.  People may poo poo the idea until they play a course like this - they can seem very long and difficult.  I always liked the idea because featured par 3s can be more utilized (say 5 of them) and par 5s can be reduced (which tend to be the weak links of many courses anyhow) to 1 or 2.  When you chuck in a couple of monster par 4s then it seems reasonable to most to have a few driveable par 4s.  I for one have been waiting for a course like this to be built for a very, very long time.    

Ciao

Sean....we are in total agreement and I push for them all the time, with no takers to date.

I am also a big advocate of reducing par on existing courses, as opposed to lengthening.....still no takers.

Someday.......

[Matt_Ward]

Joe H:

Let me address each point you made ...

The idea that higher handicaps want to be "tested" is really silly. I see these same clowns come to Bethpage and they really want to "take on" the Black from the maximum back.

That's one of the real reasons for slow play -- beyond management inertia -- is the inability to understand one's limitations. These are the same jokers who ski and believe they are "ready" for the double diamond runs.

Joe, it's up to the people who run the industry to shape it. Otherwise, the clowns / jokers who "think" they know what golf is about will continue to demand that everything on a golf course be "super-sized" like the burgers and fries they get from all the fast food places.

I believe architects can "educate" those who are looking for exciting projects to do something along the line I am suggesting. There's real savings and if enough of these types of courses come forward the likely response would be, "why have we waited so long to get these types of courses?"

Think of how RTJ pushed the applecart with his ideas on "championship" courses that are 7,000+ yards -- back in the 60's There's no reason why a similar effort can't be done that emphasizes the reverse. I'm not a fool to believe that such an effort will happen overnight -- but like the Chinese are famous for saying the longest journey can only begin with the first step.

Joe, when you say people "don't want it" you are talking to the wrong guy here. I have made it a point during my lifetime involvement with golf to travel specifically to place in order to sample something that is not simply "different" but innovative.

I salute the work Mike DeVries has done -- and although I have not played the Mines GC as of yet -- it's my hope when in the neighborhood to play it.

Joe, you raise a fair point -- how do people change any landscape -- whether it be golf courses, government, or anything else for that matter? It has to start somewhere.

Golf as we know it -- is NOT growing. The number of players is also falling and it's time for something a bit more creative. Staying on the path we are going will not advance golf but likely return it to a comparable time many years ago when only the most affluent and those "connected" were able to enjoy the game.

The economics of golf is what drives the market place and moving towards a different "model" can develop momentum if key people begin to not only talk the talk but walk the walk.

The investors you mention can be convinced that saving $$ on so many of the items that people pay for now can be redirected to a golf course project that is long enough but still challenging for all types of players -- save for the really elite types. Breaking type is never easy -- failure to understand where golf is today will only mean this grand game will return to its original roots of the few and elite.

That's not a future - that's an obituary.

[Matt_Ward]

I'd be curious to add that, if memory serves, Cobbs Creek in Philadelphia, is also no more than 6,500 yards from the tips.

Part of the problem is breaking the cycle that 7,000+ / par-72 courses are the only way to design winning golf courses that make money and add enjoyment.

[Phil McDade]

While we are at it....how about building courses that are 6500 yds, but par 68 or 69's?

*note....this question doesn't require an answer because I already know what it will be.

Paul

It sounds strange, but I do reckon sub par 70 courses at 6500 yards (or even a bit less) would be a great direction for architecture to head.  People may poo poo the idea until they play a course like this - they can seem very long and difficult.  I always liked the idea because featured par 3s can be more utilized (say 5 of them) and par 5s can be reduced (which tend to be the weak links of many courses anyhow) to 1 or 2.  When you chuck in a couple of monster par 4s then it seems reasonable to most to have a few driveable par 4s.  I for one have been waiting for a course like this to be built for a very, very long time.    

Ciao

Sean:

Have you played Boat of Garten? It meets every criteria you outline, save for perhaps the moster par 4s. It used to play to a par of 69 at 5,866, and now goes par 70 (one par 4 extended to a par 5) and remains under 6,000 from the tips. It plays longer than its measured length, however, as many of the approaches to the greens are uphill, and the fairways -- the entire course is carved out of a silver birch forest -- play pretty tight, giving one pause about pulling out driver on every hole. A bunch of very good short-to-medium-length par 4s, which are the real strength of the course.

[Sean_A]

While we are at it....how about building courses that are 6500 yds, but par 68 or 69's?

*note....this question doesn't require an answer because I already know what it will be.

Paul

It sounds strange, but I do reckon sub par 70 courses at 6500 yards (or even a bit less) would be a great direction for architecture to head.  People may poo poo the idea until they play a course like this - they can seem very long and difficult.  I always liked the idea because featured par 3s can be more utilized (say 5 of them) and par 5s can be reduced (which tend to be the weak links of many courses anyhow) to 1 or 2.  When you chuck in a couple of monster par 4s then it seems reasonable to most to have a few driveable par 4s.  I for one have been waiting for a course like this to be built for a very, very long time.    

Ciao

Sean:

Have you played Boat of Garten? It meets every criteria you outline, save for perhaps the moster par 4s. It used to play to a par of 69 at 5,866, and now goes par 70 (one par 4 extended to a par 5) and remains under 6,000 from the tips. It plays longer than its measured length, however, as many of the approaches to the greens are uphill, and the fairways -- the entire course is carved out of a silver birch forest -- play pretty tight, giving one pause about pulling out driver on every hole. A bunch of very good short-to-medium-length par 4s, which are the real strength of the course.

Phil

Yes, I have played the Boat and like it very much.  However, I can see where many longer hitters wouldn't like it because of the layup aspect of many tee shots.  I was thinking more like Rye, Harlech & Swinley.  Granted, Rye & especially Harlech are all even the best of players can handle from the backs on a day with 15mph wind - nevermind a serious breeze.  But a place like Swinley is deceptive with its par of 69 because it plays far longer than its yardage.  In fact, I don't know what the yardage is, but if its as much as 6500 I would be amazed.  It plays longer because of an extra par 3 (of which all require excellent playing to record a birdie) and only one par 5 (again - the birdie opportunities removed) - PLUS, many of the approaches are uphill.  

Paul

What is particularly perplexing is that so many Americans claim to love UK golf, yet they do so little emulate it.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Your last statement is a very solid point -- much of American golf tends to be the "super-sized" elements -- in comparable terms to the over-sized burgers / fries that American stuff down their throats at various fast food places.

Gents:

The real issue is would people even on GCA consider playing max 6,500 yard courses that are well designed or would they prefer to continue the fascination with places that are too long and too tough for them to handle.

I would think architectural groupies found on this site would see the real benefits. However, the messages posted on this thread and forwarded to me seem to suggest otherwise.

I guess people love the quirk and uniqueness of various courses in the UK and Ireland but go back to type when they return to the States.

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

I can't stand the emphasis on increased length in today's American golf courses. I deliberately seek out courses that don't depend on length or penal architecture (long forced carries) for their challenge. But, then, I'm a pretty crappy golfer, so maybe that explains much of it (I really can't handle much more length than 6,500 yards anyway).

Many of my favorite courses that I played in Scotland -- Boat of Garten, Fraserburgh, Machrihanish -- don't depend to any degree on length for their challenge and interest to the golfer. I see some movement toward that in modern American architecture -- Wild Horse and Pac Dunes, from what I've seen and read, come to mind -- but perhaps they are anti-trend setters. Certainly the most notable new courses in my neck of the woods -- Whistling Straits, The Bull for starters -- are length-driven in their demands and thus don't hold too much interest for me to play.

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
Would you enjoy Black Mesa from the 6700 yard tees? That might be a great example for you personally as those tees would equate to a lower yardage at a lower elevation.

Or Kingsley Club? I don't remember the yardage there but its not all that long even from the tips if I remember correctly.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

For me personally -- I enjoy a mixture of courses.

I would find playing a course at say 6,500 at sea level or 6,800 or thereabouts at higher altitude provided the totality of the design really had a fun and unique mixture of holes.

The issue is in getting "shorter" designs to incorporate a series of holes whereby club selection would be far more than simply deciding to play one's 56 or 60 degree wedges on most holes.

Getting long par-3's into the mixture would be a plus -- ditto getting some 4 pars that are both really short and long to up the meter in terms of real decision making for the player(s).

[Andy Troeger]

Matt,
I agree with all that certainly, and would think that Black Mesa would be a good example of most of it even from the shorter yardage. #7 and 14 are still shorter holes while #8 is no pushover. With your length I don't know if any of the par fours other than #5 would play very long but #2, 9, 10, and 17 wouldn't be pushovers by any means. You most likely would not want to choose a driver on every hole from those tees anyway although you could use it just about anywhere. Would you agree?

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

Yes, the driver would likely stay in the bag on any of the holes you mentioned. I played #5 this year and hit driver onto the pathway that crosses in front of the hole from the tips -- had no more than 100 yards in. The shot from that position was no cup cake because of the tucked pin placement. Pushing the tee forward would likely result in hitting a different club but the approach demands would still be a constant.

The issue with the shorter distances would be to cut down the desire to hit at-will with the longest of clubs. When you hit a long ball it's like having room to land a 747. You'd better be straight and stay on the short grass no matter how the fairway turns. That's not easy at Black Mesa and it's complicated even further because of the complex green contours Baxter Spann has provided. The back pin placement area on #2 is world class in my mind, to give you just one example.

Keep in mind, the real test is giving long hitters a reason to pull the driver out. If the design is simply penal with little real chance of success -- the smart play is to club down and then go from that point forward. That can get really boring. The really good "short" (6,500 and less layouts) do provide for a risky line of attack that can provide big time rewards if executed properly -- Prairie Dunes has a number of these types of holes. Of course, I'm presuming you have an architect who can juggle all these different balls (handicap types) in the air and still come out with a real diverse set of holes that always keep you guessing.

That's the real test.

[Jason McNamara]

Isn't part of the "problem" that too many golfers like their par 5s?  Good chance at a par to break that string of bogeys, maybe even a chance for eagle.  (Not really, but we may think that.)  Have there been any 6-6-6 designs lately?  That would be be a way to get the yardage down somewhat.  For that matter, has anyone tried a 6-8-4 design?  Par 70 without sacrificing the Par 5s, and it could drop up to 400-500 yds.  (I note The Mines is 4-12-2.)

Or do golfers hate par 3s too much?

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

I think having more par-3's in the mixture would be a plus -- provided they have enough creativity to keep one's interest. The original 18 at Forrest Highlands in Flagstaff, AZ, work so well to deal with the higher altitude issues because getting sufficient length for long par-4's can be quite demanding -- even a 520-yard par-4 can play short for long hitters.

If you were to have three long par-3's in the mixture it would still provide a long club dimension without eating up the overall total yardage.

Gents:

Being honest -- how much does total overall distance shape your interest in determining where you'll play? If the choice comes down to a 7,000 yard layout versus a 6,500 yard layout without nothing more being said which of the two do you opt to play?

[Lester George]

Providence Golf Club (6550) in Richmond, VA (37,000 rounds)

Ocean City Golf & Yacht Newport Bay Course, (6600) in OC, MD (40,000 rounds)

Two that I am particularly proud of.

Lester

[Andy Troeger]

Gents:

Being honest -- how much does total overall distance shape your interest in determining where you'll play? If the choice comes down to a 7,000 yard layout versus a 6,500 yard layout without nothing more being said which of the two do you opt to play?

I have to admit that I don't usually even look at length when trying to find places to play. I don't play the back tees if a course gets over 7,000 yards in most cases anyway.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Matt,

If a golf course was 7,200+ from the tips, 6,800 from the next set of tees and 6,400 from the next set of tees, wouldn't that provide a more diverse challenge, one that each golfer can choose when he pays to play ?

I think a golf course of less than 6,500 yards would lose a good segment of its potential market

[David Stamm]

I think Pasatiempo is a perfect example of a course that plays much longer than the card, something MacK seemed to be a master of. I'm not as experienced as some on this thread (or site for that matter), but I am not aware of another course that plays yard for yard as long as there. At 6511 yards, I think it's a tougher challenge than most courses I've played that are 500-700 yds longer. The college kids certainly didn't tear it to pieces earlier this year. If courses can be designed like this, then yes, absolutely this is sufficent yardage to challenge most players.

[Tom Huckaby]

David:

Now you know I love Pasatiempo.  And it does play longer than the pure numbers would suggest, primarily due to several uphill shots.

But the college kids CAN tear it up, if they are given pins that are not absurd.  The only reason they don't some years is that they get crazy pins on which God himself couldn't make a putt of any length, and where gravity will not allow the ball to stop within 10 feet of the pin placement.

And if you think about it, the same could be said for any course - if you want to make great players suffer high scores, just design wildly contoured greens, make them fast,  and put the pins on the sides of slopes.

Pasatiempo is indeed a suberb golf course at around 6500 yards.

The reason for it being superb is just not because it plays long, or can make good players suffer, though.  The reason it's suberb is that outside of absurd times, it is very very fun to play.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

I don't deny having different tee lengths can be most attractive but the theme of this thread was if a superb public course can be designed at 6,500 yards or less?

I think plenty of people bitch and moan on this site about longer and longer courses and how that process impacts land availability / water usage, etc, etc.

Too often people embrace an idea in conceptual form but if forced to apply it to themselves would just as quickly throw such an idea under the bus.

David S:

Pasatiempo is a good example of such a stellar course that is not long but seems to play much longer than the scorecard indicates.

Gents:

I think the key in getting 6,500 yards to work is not being slavish to the idea that courses must be a par-72 and have a balanced set of par-4 holes (10) and an equal number of other holes (par-5 & par-3 holes) with four apiece.

Getting more unique par-3's in the mixture would be a plus -- ditto avoiding mindless extremely long par-5 holes which are often one-dimensionally boring and simply only serve to eat up valuable real estate.

[Andy Troeger]

Tom and David,
Every course in California plays LONG for those of us who enjoy our elevation! I tend to agree with both of you though, the greens at Pasatiempo would seem to affect scoring more than the length, but at the same time it does play longer than the card would indicate. There's a pretty big difference between 6500 yards par 72 though and 6500 yards par 70 as is the case at Pasatiempo.

[Tom Huckaby]

Andy:

I am not disagreeing with the though that Pasa plays longer than it's yardage would otherwise indicate, and you make a good point about par 70 mattering too.

My point is that this "playing longer than the yardage" is NOT a reason good players might not score well there... it's the greens (and absurd pin positions) that keep their scores up.

And that could be done anywhere.  I just don't think it SHOULD be.

TH

[Philippe Binette]

Let's face it

If you stay honest with a project which is to built a public course that would be a financial success....
there's NO POINT to built a course longer than 6500 yards.

Ask a banker if it would be smart to pay for 30 extra acres X 20 000 $ (buying, shaping and grassing) = 600 000 $ (10% of a 6 000 000 $ budget) to satisfy 0,5 % of your market... (for some reason, it seems like nobody figured that one out)

I believe that a 6500 yards course, if well balanced, is long enough to challenge everybody, maybe not hold a championship but that's not the goal of your project.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()