Shouldn't added tee length be the only/prefered method of

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't understand your point. 

Perhaps you should go back and read the opening post on this thread.

In fact, I am wondering if there is a point to tehse past few pages. 

Blame AHuges for that.
He took an absurd position relative to adding tee length and then compounded it by making the lengthening of holes a universal incorporating 80 yds per hole.

You seem to be saying that courses have been lengthened. 
The reason is immaterial and that perception is more important than reality.  What is it you want people to say?  Sure, courses have been lengthened.  So what?  All this shows is that the powers that be are susceptible to knee jerk reactions based on the longest of hitters or the best of players (locally for local clubs and nationally for clubs which are more in the limelight).  It doesn't at all mean that their actions gare prudent, in the best interests of the membership or good for the game in general. 

I'd disagree.
Are you not familiar with the term "elasticity", where architects built future lengthening into the original design.

You and AHughes seem to be stating that they were wrong to do so.
WHY ?

Where are going with all of this?  If you are going somewhere, get on with it - its been a few pages of meaningless and/or obvious drivel so far. 

I can't help it if you and AHughes don't get it.

The point was made clear early on, that tee lengthening is essentially an antiseptic process with respect to the architectural features, and that rather than move bunkers and other features to a new DZ, adding tee length for those who no longer interface with the intended architecture, is the most prudent, efficient method of restoring the interfacing, without disturbing the game for the remainder of the golfers.

Now do you get it ?

[Sean_A]

I don't understand your point. 

Perhaps you should go back and read the opening post on this thread.

In fact, I am wondering if there is a point to tehse past few pages. 

Blame AHuges for that.
He took an absurd position relative to adding tee length and then compounded it by making the lengthening of holes a universal incorporating 80 yds per hole.

You seem to be saying that courses have been lengthened. 
The reason is immaterial and that perception is more important than reality.  What is it you want people to say?  Sure, courses have been lengthened.  So what?  All this shows is that the powers that be are susceptible to knee jerk reactions based on the longest of hitters or the best of players (locally for local clubs and nationally for clubs which are more in the limelight).  It doesn't at all mean that their actions gare prudent, in the best interests of the membership or good for the game in general. 

I'd disagree.
Are you not familiar with the term "elasticity", where architects built future lengthening into the original design.

You and AHughes seem to be stating that they were wrong to do so.
WHY ?

Where are going with all of this?  If you are going somewhere, get on with it - its been a few pages of meaningless and/or obvious drivel so far. 

I can't help it if you and AHughes don't get it.

The point was made clear early on, that tee lengthening is essentially an antiseptic process with respect to the architectural features, and that rather than move bunkers and other features to a new DZ, adding tee length for those who no longer interface with the intended architecture, is the most prudent, efficient method of restoring the interfacing, without disturbing the game for the remainder of the golfers.

Now do you get it ?

Pat

You make an assumption that lengthening courses is either good or necessary - I am not sure which.  In either case, I question that assumption and the reasons for doing so were clearly outlined earlier. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, c'mon, you know as well as I that there was no connection to tournament golf with that statement. 

How would I know that.  You made a statement that I took literally.

Literally, I don't think it means what you think it means.  Please point out in my quote where there is any reference to tournament play. I won't be holding my breath waiting, as we both know you just made it up.

It's clear as day, you made and all encompassing, universal statement.
Nowhere in your statement did you exclude any type of play, tournament or otherwise.  Perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

I could list hundreds, if not thousands of them.
These aren't odds and ends, they're just two perfect examples of a principle that I'm trying to get across to you, one that you're having a hard time grasping or admitting to.

Au contraire mon ami.  There is no doubt you can come up with a few holes where lengthening won't make the walk much longer, maybe even shorter in rare cases.

You're wrong again.
I can come up with more than a few holes, and it's not a rare occassion when that process results in a shorter walk.  Evidently, your data base and experiences are limited

But the fact remains, the overall walk for even those courses would be increased, often times quite substantially.

That's not true.
You continue to defy geometric logic.

This has to be the dumbest exercise anyone's suggested on this site in a long while.

The fact that it will show how absurdly wrong you are makes it dumb? Interesting definition of 'dumb.' 

No one, I repeat, no one, other than yourself, has ever suggested lengthening every par 4 and par 5 by 80 yards, adding 1,120 to 1,200 yards to a golf course.

It's your last desperate gasp at trying to support or reinforce your flawed premise, which was that lengthening a hole automatically doubles the walking distance

Pat, you came up with the extreme distance of 80 yards, not me. If it makes you feel better, sprinkle in some 20 yard increases and some 40 and 60 yard increases. 

Actually my original response to Mike Cole referenced 50 yards,
Here's the quote:

"Moving a tee back 50 yards also affects the intended DZ in terms of the effective narrowing of the DZ due to its location with respect to the angles of deflection in the golfer's shot pattern."

Then I referenced a SPECIFIC HOLE of 420 yards in the context of altering the tee shot and the second shot.  Here's Mike Cirba's statement and my response:

The fact is that technological advances have changed things dramatically, and lengthening holes by moving tees back only addresses that change for the FIRST shot...not any subsequent ones.

That's ridiculous.

If you play a par 4 that's 420 yards and move the tee back 80 yards to 500 yards, I guarantee you that your second shot will have changed.
"

The end result is exactly the same--you are clearly wrong if you try to claim that the overall walk will not be increased by adding those distances to EVERY par 4 and par 5.

NO ONE, REPEAT, NO ONE, OTHER THAN YOU ever suggested adding 80 or 60 or 40 yards to EVERY par 4 and par 5.

That's your idiotic contention.

I referenced a specific hole, a 420 yard par 4 and pointed out to Mike Cirba how added tee length would affect the second shot, something he initially denied.

It was YOU and ONLY YOU who idiotically extended EVERY HOLE by 80 yards.

Hopefully, you now see the mistake you made. 

There really isn't even any debate about that. You cannot come up with ten courses where that scenario would be false, all you can do is come up with random holes here and there which does nothing to bolster you obviously absurd claim.

You can't be that stupid, or can you.

I never made that claim, YOU DID.

I referenced ONE hole, and YOU took it to the extreme and applied it to EVERY par 4 and par 5.

It's YOUR claim, one of the dumbest claims I've ever heard.

No one other than YOU introduced lengthening every par 4 and par 5 by 80 yards.

Please enroll in memory school at your earliest convenience as you can't seem to recall what was stated, and by whom.

[Andy Hughes]

You're confused.
This thread has NOTHING to do with Sand Hills.
The Sand Hills vs Friar's Head discussion was SOLELY in the context of those two courses.
Friar's Head is easier to walk for several reasons.
1   The tee to fairway walks are benign
2   The green to tee walks are generally easier.

No, this thread has nothing to do with Sand Hills. But some quotes you made when discussing Sand Hills certainly relate to this thread. Your own quotes are diamtrically opposed to your claims on this thread.  In effect, you have begun arguing with yourself.  Is it really your contention that "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" was made solely in reference to Sand Hills and not all courses? Do you really think that passes the laugh test?  C'mon, let this one go.

Admittedly, your experiences are limited.  However, you wanted to cite TOC and ANGC, which have already had just about every hole lengthened for Championship play.

Absolutely irrelevant. Their 'members' may still feel the courses lack proper challenge and decide to add yardage to the tee shots.  Take a look at an aerial of TOC, and try to claim the walk would not be increased quite a bit. 

It was an easy and prudent conclusion to reach.
You tried to shift the discussion from hole specific examples of adding length,  to the ridiculous position of adding 80 yards to EVERY par 4 and par 5.  It was apparent that you lost the debate and were seeking to divert the discussion to an extreme, absurd  example.

It was also wrong on your part. If it makes you feel better, try the same TOC experiment with a variety of distances such between 20-80 yards. You are still quite wrong.  Now try the same thing with AGNC--you sre still wrong.

It doesn't have to be, agreed. But it easily could be, i.e. land acquistion etc.
Land acquisition ?  ?  ?
You're getting even more absurd.
I'd like to know the course and the routing that would require the acquisition of land for all of the par 4's and par 5's on the golf course.

Right, no course has ever bought neighboring land. Please lay off the hard stuff.
Also, when did I say land acquisition would apply to every hole on a course?  Is that the fourth or fifth time you have dishonestly made a claim about something I said?  If you wish to quote me, at least have the decency to do it properly and not insert your own meanings and language in a way that you feel helps your absurd position.

[Andy Hughes]

You're wrong again.
I can come up with more than a few holes, and it's not a rare occassion when that process results in a shorter walk.  Evidently, your data base and experiences are limited

But the fact remains, the overall walk for even those courses would be increased, often times quite substantially.

That's not true.
You continue to defy geometric logic.

By the by, if I am so dadgum adsurdly wrong, and your database is so much better, and I defy logic----then why haven't you been able to come up with 10 courses that would have had their overall walk reduced after lengthening their par 4s and 5s? Go ahead and vary the distances from 25-80 yards if you like it really won't make any difference.  The fact that you haven't come up with a single course, to justify your obviously incorrect assertion says something pretty clear.

Now, if your point is that clubs have lengthened in recent years, then yes, clearly you are right.  My point, and I believe Sean's, is that often it is not needed and misguided.  What would be the true percentage of members who are genuinely not challenged at the typical club? Clearly none of us has that number, but my position is that it is miniscule. Have clubs done his? Yes. Do they have the right? Of course.  Is it the right thing to do? That is the question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're confused.
This thread has NOTHING to do with Sand Hills.
The Sand Hills vs Friar's Head discussion was SOLELY in the context of those two courses.
Friar's Head is easier to walk for several reasons.
1   The tee to fairway walks are benign
2   The green to tee walks are generally easier.

No, this thread has nothing to do with Sand Hills. But some quotes you made when discussing Sand Hills certainly relate to this thread.

No, they don't.
The Sand Hills vs Friar's Head thread was sites specific.

Your own quotes are diamtrically opposed to your claims on this thread. 


No, they're not.  My quotes are consistent. 
You're just can't differentiate between a particular and universals.

In effect, you have begun arguing with yourself. 


No, I haven't.
I've been arguing with you and you inability to grasp concepts.

Is it really your contention that "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" was made solely in reference to Sand Hills and not all courses?

Yes, the Sand Hills vs Friar's Head thread concerned itself with those courses and no others.

Even if I agreed to extend the discussion to incorporate other courses, even universally, that doesn't transcend to adopting the idiotic position you adopted, wherein you contexted the discussion in the realm of lengthening every par 4 and every par 5 by 80 yards.

Your extension and example is incredibly absurd and flat out wrong, yet, you continue to double your effort to prove a point that can't be made.

To not admit the fallacy of your examples and arguement undermines your credibility.

Do you really think that passes the laugh test?  C'mon, let this one go.

I'm not prone to conceding to absurd and erroneous premises and conclusions.

Admittedly, your experiences are limited.  However, you wanted to cite TOC and ANGC, which have already had just about every hole lengthened for Championship play.

Absolutely irrelevant.

First you want to cite TOC and ANGC to support your argument, and then when I prove you're wrong with respect to those two courses you declare them irrelevant.

Face it, you don't get it.  Your continued support of your absolutely absurd premise/s makes you look foolish.

Their 'members' may still feel the courses lack proper challenge and decide to add yardage to the tee shots.  Take a look at an aerial of TOC, and try to claim the walk would not be increased quite a bit.

Those courses have already been lengthened, and, as part of that lengthening, the lengthened tee came closer to the prior green.
That's something you refuse to acknowledge.

It was an easy and prudent conclusion to reach.
You tried to shift the discussion from hole specific examples of adding length,  to the ridiculous position of adding 80 yards to EVERY par 4 and par 5.  It was apparent that you lost the debate and were seeking to divert the discussion to an extreme, absurd  example.

It was also wrong on your part.


No it wasn't.
I was HOLE SPECIFIC.
It was YOU and ONLY YOU who took the absurd position of extending every par 4 and par 5 by 80 yards.

If it makes you feel better, try the same TOC experiment with a variety of distances such between 20-80 yards. You are still quite wrong.  Now try the same thing with AGNC--you sre still wrong.

Really ?
Take a look at what happens when you extend the tee on # 6.
The same thing happened at # 2, # 5, # 7, # 11, # 17 and # 18.

But, this isn't the critical issue.
The critical issue that you don't get or don't want to get is that NO ONE other than you ever applied the concept of elasticity as a universal.

Your argument fails miserably because only a moron would make that suggestion.

It doesn't have to be, agreed. But it easily could be, i.e. land acquistion etc.

Land acquisition ?  ?  ?
You're getting even more absurd.
I'd like to know the course and the routing that would require the acquisition of land for all of the par 4's and par 5's on the golf course.

Right, no course has ever bought neighboring land. Please lay off the hard stuff.

The number of courses that acquired land many years subsequent to the original property to lengthen holes is infinitesimal.

Also, when did I say land acquisition would apply to every hole on a course? 

That's easy to answer.
Because it was YOU who extended the concept of lengthening a specific hole to the universal of lengthening every par 4 and par 5 by 80 yards.

Is that the fourth or fifth time you have dishonestly made a claim about something I said? 

Oh really ?
Go ahead and cite where I misquoted you four or five times.
You can't remember what you type, so how would you know if you were misquoted.

If you wish to quote me, at least have the decency to do it properly and not insert your own meanings and language in a way that you feel helps your absurd position.

I stand by the veracity of my citations.

Are you going to deny that it was YOU and ONLY you who made the absolutely absurd and assinine statement regarding lengthening EVERY par 4 and EVERY par 5 by 80 yards ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're wrong again.
I can come up with more than a few holes, and it's not a rare occassion when that process results in a shorter walk.  Evidently, your data base and experiences are limited

But the fact remains, the overall walk for even those courses would be increased, often times quite substantially.

That's not true.
You continue to defy geometric logic.

By the by, if I am so dadgum adsurdly wrong, and your database is so much better, and I defy logic----then why haven't you been able to come up with 10 courses that would have had their overall walk reduced after lengthening their par 4s and 5s?

I'd love to have a battle of wits with you, but, it appears that I'd be fighting with an unarmed man.

Once again you make the fatal flaw of insisting that EVERY par 4 and EVERY par 5 be lengthened.

I NEVER made that statement.  YOU DID.

I'm not going to cite examples of an absurd, assinine premise that YOU came up with.

Go ahead and vary the distances from 25-80 yards if you like it really won't make any difference.  The fact that you haven't come up with a single course, to justify your obviously incorrect assertion says something pretty clear.

AHughes, don't take this personally, but, myself and others have come to the conclusion that you're missing a few cards in the deck when it comes to grey matter.

I NEVER made the assertion or postured the premise that incorporated lengthening EVERY par 4 and EVERY par 5.

That's YOUR stupid idea.
I had nothing to do with its authorship.

YOU created an absurd, assinine premise, then asked me to support it.

You can't get more obtuse than that.

Have someone explain it to you as obviously, you just don't get it.

Now, if your point is that clubs have lengthened in recent years, then yes, clearly you are right. 

I knew that before I started this thread.

Did you ever bother to read the initial post in this thread ?
Try it, it might enlighten you.

My point, and I believe Sean's, is that often it is not needed and misguided. 

Has it been needed at ANGC and TOC ?

What would be the true percentage of members who are genuinely not challenged at the typical club?

Clearly none of us has that number, but my position is that it is miniscule.


Please, please reread the opening post on this thread.
Evidently you don't understand the issue put forth in the initial post.

Have clubs done his? Yes. Do they have the right? Of course.  Is it the right thing to do? That is the question.

No, it's not.

The question, clearly written in the initial post is this:

"Shouldn't added tee length be the only/prefered method of making a golf course more challenging ?

Shouldn't clubs leave all other features as is ?

When difficult features are added, it affects all members.
When fairways are narrowed, it affects all members.
When greens are sped up to sonic speeds, it affects all members.

Why not leave the golf course as it is and ONLY make it MORE challenging for the better player by adding length ?"