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

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

[Jim Sweeney]

I would generally agree if there is enough property. Otherwise, repositioning bunkers, etc. may be the only course of action, that is, if one believes any action at all is necessay.

[Steve Burrows]

Is length the ONLY thing that separates the superior player from the inferior?

[Bruce Leland]

Is length the ONLY thing that separates the superior player from the inferior?

Certainly not in a vacuum but with the improved ball and implements of todays game, the difference is exponential and increasing.  On a 465 yard par 4 the long modern player has a gap wedge left to the hole where the good player of modest length might have a mid to long iron.  I'll take the wedge every time

[Kirk Stewart]

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 ?

You state in your subject line that adding length should be the prefered/only method of making a course more challenging. My answer is: No of course not, that is silly.
So if course decides to go with a firm and fast mentality it's ok ? Do you think firm and fast only affects certain members ? Doesn't firm and fast equate to more difficult course conditions? I thought firm and fast was "Sporty" ?

The conditions at Seminole this Spring where as difficult as I have ever played. The yardage has not changed, no bunkers have been added or moved and it played 5 strokes harder than the year before--all due to F&F conditions.


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

Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists.  I doubt it will impact the "better player" as much as one would think. I think we would we see some strategic hazards become unreachable off the tee making it easier for the better player and the same for the average player.
Taking a 2 shotter from 420 to 480 would obviously play more difficult with everything else being equal.

Additionally, if length is added to the three shotters many of the better players will resist giving it a go and in the long run probably save shots. How many times have you said, "that was the last time I go for this green in two"?

Adding length on Par 3s would support your argument.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

You state in your subject line that adding length should be the prefered/only method of making a course more challenging. My answer is: No of course not, that is silly.

Why is it silly ?

So if course decides to go with a firm and fast mentality it's ok ?

I covered that in line item # 3

Do you think firm and fast only affects certain members ?

I covered that in line item # 3

Doesn't firm and fast equate to more difficult course conditions?


F&F isn't an architectural feature.
Perhaps you should go back and reread the opening post.

I thought firm and fast was "Sporty" ?

To a point, it is, however, this thread has to do with architectural features, not conditions, which are fleeting.

The conditions at Seminole this Spring where as difficult as I have ever played.

What's that got to do with the architectural features ?

The yardage has not changed, no bunkers have been added or moved and it played 5 strokes harder than the year before--all due to F&F conditions.

Again, that's got nothing to do with architectural features.

And, F&F conditions are temporary and fleeting.


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

Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists.  

If it doesn't, then you can't lengthen the hole

I doubt it will impact the "better player" as much as one would think.


Then why has every course that's held a major been considerably lengthened ?

I think we would we see some strategic hazards become unreachable off the tee making it easier for the better player and the same for the average player.

In that case, you wouldn't lengthen the hole.

Could you name 10 examples of that ?

I've never seen a hole that was substantively lengthened that became easier, can you name 10 ?

Taking a 2 shotter from 420 to 480 would obviously play more difficult with everything else being equal.

I believe I indicated that.

Additionally, if length is added to the three shotters many of the better players will resist giving it a go and in the long run probably save shots.


Why would they save shots ?
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

How many times have you said, "that was the last time I go for this green in two"?

I don't think I ever have.
Whether that's a tribute to understanding the risk/reward factor or good judgement I'm not sure, but, the only thing that would disuade me from going for a green in two would be my ability to get to the green in two without having to hit a once in a 100 shot.  It's either within my range or out of my range.  Obviously wind and humidity and the way I feel and am hitting the ball that day will determine my final decision.

Adding length on Par 3s would support your argument.

Agreed

[Kirk Stewart]

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 ?
[/quote]

You state in your subject line that adding length should be the prefered/only method of making a course more challenging. My answer is: No of course not, that is silly.

Why is it silly ?
--Because it is not the only or prefered method of making a golf course more challenging.

So if course decides to go with a firm and fast mentality it's ok ?

I covered that in line item # 3

Do you think firm and fast only affects certain members ?

I covered that in line item # 3

Doesn't firm and fast equate to more difficult course conditions?


F&F isn't an architectural feature.
Perhaps you should go back and reread the opening post.

----Your opening post suggest added tee length is the only/prefered method of making a course more challenging. It is in the subject line. You then ask a second question relating to leaving everything else equal. I have covered that.

I thought firm and fast was "Sporty" ?

To a point, it is, however, this thread has to do with architectural features, not conditions, which are fleeting.

The conditions at Seminole this Spring where as difficult as I have ever played.

What's that got to do with the architectural features ?

The yardage has not changed, no bunkers have been added or moved and it played 5 strokes harder than the year before--all due to F&F conditions.

Again, that's got nothing to do with architectural features.

And, F&F conditions are temporary and fleeting.

---Again, it is not the only way to make a course more challenging which is what you asked in your very first sentance. Conditions can be, and are, dictated by the Super until Mother Nature arrives. In this case it has everything to do with portions of your post. With the architectural features a constant from 2007-2008 Seminole played much more difficult due to F&F. Don't you consider a sea/ocean side golf course to have inherit F&F architectural features i.e. grasses, effects of wind, speed, bunkering?


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

Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists.  

If it doesn't, then you can't lengthen the hole

---and it wouldn't be the "prefered method" either.

I doubt it will impact the "better player" as much as one would think.


Then why has every course that's held a major been considerably lengthened ?

--And they also moved the other features like bunkers. I thought you wanted to leave evrything else as is ?


I think we would we see some strategic hazards become unreachable off the tee making it easier for the better player and the same for the average player.

In that case, you wouldn't lengthen the hole.

Could you name 10 examples of that ?

--How about the FW bunkers on #1, 2,5, 8, and 18 at ANGC for starters. All where moved in relation to the tees being moved. They are unreachable for a majority of the field yet still reachable for member play at the appropriate tee. I can easily find 5 more.

I've never seen a hole that was substantively lengthened that became easier, can you name 10 ?

--Are you speaking to member play or back to courses that host majors for professionals ?

 
Taking a 2 shotter from 420 to 480 would obviously play more difficult with everything else being equal.

I believe I indicated that.

Additionally, if length is added to the three shotters many of the better players will resist giving it a go and in the long run probably save shots.


Why would they save shots ?

--Ask Zach Johnson that.

Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

--Oh really.


How many times have you said, "that was the last time I go for this green in two"?

I don't think I ever have.
Whether that's a tribute to understanding the risk/reward factor or good judgement I'm not sure, but, the only thing that would disuade me from going for a green in two would be my ability to get to the green in two without having to hit a once in a 100 shot.  It's either within my range or out of my range.  Obviously wind and humidity and the way I feel and am hitting the ball that day will determine my final decision.

--You need to play more three shotters with heroic carries and then we will see what happens.

Adding length on Par 3s would support your argument.

Agreed

[/quote]
[/quote]

[Sean_A]

Pat

I think you have to look at this sort of thing as a case by case basis.  First and foremost, clubs shouldn't have knee jerk reactions to guys hitting the ball a mile.  This sort of thing has existed since the beginning of golf and I believe it has been conclusively proven that adding yardage doesn't work against the very best players.  Personally, I think adding yardage can be a bit short sighted as there are many courses which prove to be very effective at providing a challenge by having a low par to yardage ratio, but this answer tends to ignore the very best players and that may not be a bad thing at all.  Many of these classic sub 70 par courses at 6000-6500 yards have a timeless quality about them - perhaps thats why they are so well thought of.  Spending money that only a flat belly can take advantage of is not how I would want my club to handle the difficulty of length.  My first thought would be to ignore it, if the very best players don't like it then play somewhere else.   

I do agree that f&f conditions are not architectural, but these sorts of conditions should be allowed for in the architecture, just as wind should be allowed for.  So, I don't believe there is an absolute disconect.  In fact, the relationship between the conditions and the architecture should be so interwoven that it is pointless to separate them form architecture.  When an archie provides for these elements then there will be times when the course will play relatively easy, but for the overwhelming majority of golfers it isn't a problem.  In fact, it may be a welcome respite!

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

You state in your subject line that adding length should be the prefered/only method of making a course more challenging. My answer is: No of course not, that is silly.

Why is it silly ?
--Because it is not the only or prefered method of making a golf course more challenging.

What is the prefered architectural method of making a golf course more challenging ?

So if course decides to go with a firm and fast mentality it's ok ?

I covered that in line item # 3

Do you think firm and fast only affects certain members ?

I covered that in line item # 3

Doesn't firm and fast equate to more difficult course conditions?


F&F isn't an architectural feature.
Perhaps you should go back and reread the opening post.

----Your opening post suggest added tee length is the only/prefered method of making a course more challenging.

It is in the subject line. You then ask a second question relating to leaving everything else equal. I have covered that.

Apparently, you don't understand the question.
Your solution affects everyone, including golfers who DON'T need to have the course made more challenging.  Why penalize them ?

I thought firm and fast was "Sporty" ?

To a point, it is, however, this thread has to do with architectural features, not conditions, which are fleeting.

The conditions at Seminole this Spring where as difficult as I have ever played.

What's that got to do with the architectural features ?

The yardage has not changed, no bunkers have been added or moved and it played 5 strokes harder than the year before--all due to F&F conditions.

Again, that's got nothing to do with architectural features.

And, F&F conditions are temporary and fleeting.

---Again, it is not the only way to make a course more challenging which is what you asked in your very first sentance.

Most intelligent posters read ALL of the sentences in order to understand the concept behind the thread.  Why don't you go back and read the initial post in its entirety.  If that doesn't help you understand the gist of the thread, call TEPaul.

Conditions can be, and are, dictated by the Super until Mother Nature arrives.

Can you name five golf courses that are consistently fast & firm for the entire season ?

In this case it has everything to do with portions of your post. With the architectural features a constant from 2007-2008 Seminole played much more difficult due to F&F.

But, it played more difficult for the poor to mediocre player as well, and not just for the player who needed more of a challenge.

Try rereading the initial post as it might help you understand this thread.

Don't you consider a sea/ocean side golf course to have inherit F&F architectural features i.e. grasses, effects of wind, speed, bunkering?
NO.

Rainfall and temperature play a key, if not THE key role in determining basic conditions.

I'm also not familiar with bunkers that are F&F and I've played Seminole a fair number of times over the years.


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

Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists.  

If it doesn't, then you can't lengthen the hole

---and it wouldn't be the "prefered method" either.

Of course it would because lengthening ONLY affects a narrow spectrum of golfers who want a challenge commensurate with their abilities.
It's category specific.
It allows those golfers who face a sufficient or overwhelming challenge to not have that challenge increased, making the game less fun for them

I doubt it will impact the "better player" as much as one would think.


Then why has every course that's held a major been considerably lengthened ?

--And they also moved the other features like bunkers.
I thought you wanted to leave evrything else as is ?

In most cases they moved the bunkers inward, toward the centerline, which adversely affects ALL members, including poor and mediocre players.
This is counter productive, whereas, lengthening ONLY affects the better player who needs an increased challenge due to increased distance.

I think we would we see some strategic hazards become unreachable off the tee making it easier for the better player and the same for the average player.

In that case, you wouldn't lengthen the hole.

Could you name 10 examples of that ?

--How about the FW bunkers on #1, 2,5, 8, and 18 at ANGC for starters. All where moved in relation to the tees being moved.

They are unreachable for a majority of the field yet still reachable for member play at the appropriate tee.

That's not true.

Please tell us when and where the bunkers on the holes you reference were moved from and where they now reside.
 
Those bunkers are ALL reachable by the majority of the field, unless you feel that the bunkers were moved to eliminate them as an interactive feature, while retaining them only for aesthetic affects.

And, they were always reachable for member play.

I can easily find 5 more.

So far, you've only named one course, you've got 9 more to go.

I've never seen a hole that was substantively lengthened that became easier, can you name 10 ?

--Are you speaking to member play or back to courses that host majors for professionals ?

Do five of each

Taking a 2 shotter from 420 to 480 would obviously play more difficult with everything else being equal.

I believe I indicated that.

Additionally, if length is added to the three shotters many of the better players will resist giving it a go and in the long run probably save shots.


Why would they save shots ?

--Ask Zach Johnson that.

I"m asking you.
You're not going to cite one individual as supporting evidence for a universal statement are you ?

While you're at it, please also cite the holes where this would occur

Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

--Oh really.


Yes, really.

I'll repeat the statement.
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

Would you like to make a wager on the accuracy of that statement ?

How many times have you said, "that was the last time I go for this green in two"?

I don't think I ever have.
Whether that's a tribute to understanding the risk/reward factor or good judgement I'm not sure, but, the only thing that would disuade me from going for a green in two would be my ability to get to the green in two without having to hit a once in a 100 shot.  It's either within my range or out of my range.  Obviously wind and humidity and the way I feel and am hitting the ball that day will determine my final decision.

--You need to play more three shotters with heroic carries and then we will see what happens.

Name 10 three shotters with heroic carries.

I've played a good number of par 5's over the years, including some with heroic carries like # 13 and # 15 at ANGC, and there's not one that I wouldn't go for if I was routinely capable of hitting the ball the distance required for the shot at hand.

Adding length on Par 3s would support your argument.

Agreed

[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

I think you have to look at this sort of thing as a case by case basis.  First and foremost, clubs shouldn't have knee jerk reactions to guys hitting the ball a mile. 

While I agree with you, apparently many, if not most clubs don't.
There seems to be a systemic effort to lengthen golf courses.
It may be due to the incredible length young golfers are hitting the ball at their local club.

This sort of thing has existed since the beginning of golf and I believe it has been conclusively proven that adding yardage doesn't work against the very best players. 

I believe it does at the local level

Personally, I think adding yardage can be a bit short sighted as there are many courses which prove to be very effective at providing a challenge by having a low par to yardage ratio, but this answer tends to ignore the very best players and that may not be a bad thing at all. 

The "very best players" have nothing to do with this issue.
They will NEVER play these local courses

Many of these classic sub 70 par courses at 6000-6500 yards have a timeless quality about them - perhaps thats why they are so well thought of. 

I'd agree

Spending money that only a flat belly can take advantage of is not how I would want my club to handle the difficulty of length.  My first thought would be to ignore it, if the very best players don't like it then play somewhere else.

But, they're not ignoring it, they're lengthening their courses.   

I do agree that f&f conditions are not architectural, but these sorts of conditions should be allowed for in the architecture, just as wind should be allowed for.  So, I don't believe there is an absolute disconect.  In fact, the relationship between the conditions and the architecture should be so interwoven that it is pointless to separate them form architecture.  When an archie provides for these elements then there will be times when the course will play relatively easy, but for the overwhelming majority of golfers it isn't a problem.  In fact, it may be a welcome respite!

Sean, that's not what's going on in the real world.

And, F&F appears to be mostly illusory, if not pure fiction.

When temperatures and humidity is in the 90's, you're not going to get F&F.

When it's rainy and cool in the spring, you're not going to get F&F

F&F usually arrives in Sept, Oct & Nov when play is down dramatically in the northeast.

F&F in the South is mostly fiction or temporary at best

In addition, I see a counter trend away from F&F in some instances.

[Thomas MacWood]

Pat
Adding length would definitely be the preferred method. In comparison to wholesale repositioning of fairway bunkers it is by far the least costly option. It also the least evasive, preserving the original architecture. There are only limited number of original Simpson, Ross, Mackenzie or Thomas bunkers in the world today. If it all possible they should be preserved IMO.

Moving bunkers is a very dicey business in my mind, often architects place bunkers in a particular spot because of the lay of the land or some natural feature. A bunker like that should never be moved. Also as distances increase in ten or twenty years, are you going to move them again. That is a very expensive habit. And who are you moving these bunkers for? 5 to 10% of the golfers, if that?

Many of these original architects applied a random bunkering scheme, they knew golfers would get longer, they observed during their own time. With random bunkering in some cases if you just kept everything in place a bunker that did not come into play originally now may dictate play. John Low referred to this as indistrucatability....the Old Course was a model for this evolving strategy. 

[Michael]

Question..

 If you added length to a certain hole would you also consider narrowing the LA for the longer hitters?

 Say you you had tees set to a landing area that was pretty generous for hitters at the 200-250 range, moving the tees back say 30 to 50 yard and pinching the fairway just past the original LA with ether denser rough of additional hazards?

 Michael

[Patrick_Mucci]

Question..

 If you added length to a certain hole would you also consider narrowing the LA for the longer hitters?

Michael,

No, I wouldn't narrow the fairways.
Primarily because it might penalize lesser golfers needlessly.

The added distance inherently narrows the effective DZ.

Say you you had tees set to a landing area that was pretty generous for hitters at the 200-250 range, moving the tees back say 30 to 50 yard and pinching the fairway just past the original LA with ether denser rough of additional hazards?

I think it's a bad idea, especially the introduction of additional hazards, hazards that can come into play for the weaker golfer.

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.

[Michael]

Pat.

 Meaning that the narrower area would limit the players option in regards to the angle of his approach/next shot?

Michael

[Patrick_Mucci]

Not just that it limits their options in terms of angles, but because of the punitive nature of rough on the lesser golfer.

They have enough trouble on the hole without having to make it more difficult for them.

Why make holes that are difficult for the average and poor golfer more difficult, just to compensate for the enhanced driving distance of the good player ?

[Michael]

Not just that it limits their options in terms of angles, but because of the punitive nature of rough on the lesser golfer.

They have enough trouble on the hole without having to make it more difficult for them.

Why make holes that are difficult for the average and poor golfer more difficult, just to compensate for the enhanced driving distance of the good player ?

 Isn't this kind of interconnected with the debate of players using the tee location that best fits their game?...a narrowed landing area at 280-300 from a additional (back) tee location wouldn't impact the original tee location landing area at 200-250..right?

[Andy Hughes]

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

Pat, what type of player is it that you are referring to as a 'better player'?  How long is his average drive and 7 iron, and what would his handicap be?

[Kirk Stewart]

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 ?
[/quote]


What is the prefered architectural method of making a golf course more challenging ?[/b]




I'm also not familiar with bunkers that are F&F and I've played Seminole a fair number of times over the years. [/b]


Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists.  

If it doesn't, then you can't lengthen the hole

---and it wouldn't be the "prefered method" either.

Of course it would because lengthening ONLY affects a narrow spectrum of golfers who want a challenge commensurate with their abilities.
It's category specific.
It allows those golfers who face a sufficient or overwhelming challenge to not have that challenge increased, making the game less fun for them

--How can it be the prefered method when the club has no room for expansion? Hello ?



I think we would we see some strategic hazards become unreachable off the tee making it easier for the better player and the same for the average player.

In that case, you wouldn't lengthen the hole.

Could you name 10 examples of that ?

--How about the FW bunkers on #1, 2,5, 8, and 18 at ANGC for starters. All where moved in relation to the tees being moved.

They are unreachable for a majority of the field yet still reachable for member play at the appropriate tee.

That's not true.

Please tell us when and where the bunkers on the holes you reference were moved from and where they now reside.
 
Those bunkers are ALL reachable by the majority of the field, unless you feel that the bunkers were moved to eliminate them as an interactive feature, while retaining them only for aesthetic affects.


---Not true. The longest driving average for this years event was JB Holmes at 297.  If memory serves #1 is 300 yards to the front and 3 to cover. #5 is 295 front and 315 to cover. I do not have the yardage book in front of me. As for 18,, based on observation rarely did I see a ball bunkered. I will research the scoring average for the 18th over the past 3-4 years and see what I find.





So far, you've only named one course, you've got 9 more to go.

--You asked for 10 examples not 10 courses.


I've never seen a hole that was substantively lengthened that became easier, can you name 10 ?

--Are you speaking to member play or back to courses that host majors for professionals ?

Do five of each


--ok


Additionally, if length is added to the three shotters many of the better players will resist giving it a go and in the long run probably save shots.

Why would they save shots ?

--Ask Zach Johnson that.

I"m asking you.
You're not going to cite one individual as supporting evidence for a universal statement are you ?

While you're at it, please also cite the holes where this would occur

--Any Par 5 that has added tee length to become more difficult for the better player. The average player will not have the option to go for it and,  regardless of water, they will generally save shots by playing it as a 3 shotter.

Furthermore, If you played the 13th and 15th at ANGC 10 times going for it and 10 times playing it as Zach Johnson did, I guarantee you would save shots by being conservative . You take 6 and 7 out out of the equation. Can't you understand that ?
 
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

--Oh really.


Yes, really.

I'll repeat the statement.
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

Would you like to make a wager on the accuracy of that statement ?

--Quid or money ??
 
How many times have you said, "that was the last time I go for this green in two"?

I don't think I ever have.
Whether that's a tribute to understanding the risk/reward factor or good judgement I'm not sure, but, the only thing that would disuade me from going for a green in two would be my ability to get to the green in two without having to hit a once in a 100 shot.  It's either within my range or out of my range.  Obviously wind and humidity and the way I feel and am hitting the ball that day will determine my final decision.

--You need to play more three shotters with heroic carries and then we will see what happens.

Name 10 three shotters with heroic carries.

--I can and will,  in due course,  if it matters to you. My contention is that added tee length on these type of holes absolutely removes the temptation for the average player and in the long run will save them shots i.e. making it easier.

I've played a good number of par 5's over the years, including some with heroic carries like # 13 and # 15 at ANGC, and there's not one that I wouldn't go for if I was routinely capable of hitting the ball the distance required for the shot at hand.

--Exactly. And don't you think Zach could have reached 13 and 15? Of course he could, but the added length (with all else being equal) allowed Johnson to pay to his strength and he  murdered the 5 pars. What do you suppose would have happened if he did try for the heroic shot?  He probably would not be in the 34 long.

Adding length on Par 3s would support your argument.

Agreed

[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

[archie_struthers]

 


Patrick ...surely an original design can have flaws that may or may not change the difficulty, but seem to surface with play and drainage et al...some changes may make it play a little harder or easier....so you can't generalize that you can't change the golf course

if you are postulating that generally "tricking Up " a golf course to make it tougher is bad business you would get a consensus of agreement here. 

Save the hard conditions for the occasional  scratch tournaments...it;s fun for them ....occasionally


However if you start relating to it in terms of dumbing down we might get some flip flopping  ( et tu  Brute? )

[Kirk Stewart]

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 ?

Patrick,

Are you watching the Cup? Did you notice Sergio's tee shot on 18 ? He ripped it and was short of the FW bunker. The bunker is 293 to the front from the back tee. Sergio is one of the longer hitters on tour.

From the next tee it is 240 to the bunker and well in reach for member play. In this case the lengthing of the hole has made it easier for the stronger player/longer hitter by increasing the LZ.
The member, however,  must still mind the fairway bunker. In this case the LZ  is reduced drastically due to the FW bunker on the left and water on the right.

Additionally, you might want to pay particular attention to #7.  A 601 yard Par 5 that requires a "heroic carry" to reach in two.  For member play the hole plays 505 and well within reach. My contention is that the member being tempted to give it go will find more trouble from the forward tee than if he/she where to play it from 601 yards and have no choice but to play it as a 3 shotter.

Lastly, on doglegs adding length can make the LZ larger and easier making the necessity to work the ball neglible. A hole at my course is a hard dogleg right. From the member tee a 3W, hybrid or long iron must be used to avoid running thru the dogleg or into 2 FW bunkers.
From the back tee you can hit it straight away and not reach the FW bunkers or froman elevated tee,  hit it over the tree lined dogleg.  From the member tee only a few really good players with a high launch can hit it over the trees.

On straight away Par 4s without strategic hazards,  I'd agree with you if all else is equal.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

I agree with your suggestion that added tee length should be the prefered method of making a course more challenging.

Moving bunkers around is not a good idea in my opinion.

I think however that if a club had containment mounding added behind the greens, or trees planted as a backdrop to the greens to "frame the hole" that removal of those add-ons can make the golf hole harder. Let me hasten to add that I'm saying that you would necessarily want to do that, but if your goal is to make the golf course harder, that would be way less of a compromise to the architectural integrity of the golf course than moving bunkers around is. One thing that the new equipment hasn't made easier is depth and distance perception.

[PCCraig]

Sounds like a T. Fazio course.

[Joe Hancock]

Is the assumption in this premise that all, or most golf courses are otherwise nearly ideal, apart from the issue of length?

If all the greens are perfectly integrated(strategically and otherwise) and possess great interest, then yes...add length.

If all the bunkers are well executed and of proper placement for variety, both strategically and aesthetically...add length.

If all the fairways follow the land in an adventurous manner while providing proper play corridors...add length.

If mowing heights take into account the types of turfgrass, the maintenance of them, the terrain, firmness, etc...add length.

If a club directs an architect to maintain historical relevance, yet add length..add length.

I just don't know that one could single out one issue out of many when addressing issues of challenge, perhaps especially when attempting to fairly challenge all levels of play.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

Pat, what type of player is it that you are referring to as a 'better player'?  How long is his average drive and 7 iron, and what would his handicap be?

The "better player" would be amongst the top 10 percent at his golf club.

As to his average drive and average 7 iron it would probably be club/location dependent.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 ?

What is the prefered architectural method of making a golf course more challenging ?[/b]




I'm also not familiar with bunkers that are F&F and I've played Seminole a fair number of times over the years. [/b]


Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists.  

If it doesn't, then you can't lengthen the hole

---and it wouldn't be the "prefered method" either.

Of course it would because lengthening ONLY affects a narrow spectrum of golfers who want a challenge commensurate with their abilities.
It's category specific.
It allows those golfers who face a sufficient or overwhelming challenge to not have that challenge increased, making the game less fun for them

--How can it be the prefered method when the club has no room for expansion? Hello ?

You stated "Adding length is a fine example if the ability to do this exists"

Then you stated:-and it wouldn't be the "prefered method" either

And that's when I stated that it would be the prefered method.

I think we would we see some strategic hazards become unreachable off the tee making it easier for the better player and the same for the average player.

In that case, you wouldn't lengthen the hole.

Could you name 10 examples of that ?

--How about the FW bunkers on #1, 2,5, 8, and 18 at ANGC for starters. All where moved in relation to the tees being moved.

They are unreachable for a majority of the field yet still reachable for member play at the appropriate tee.

That's not true.

Please tell us when and where the bunkers on the holes you reference were moved from and where they now reside.
 
Those bunkers are ALL reachable by the majority of the field, unless you feel that the bunkers were moved to eliminate them as an interactive feature, while retaining them only for aesthetic affects.

Not true. The longest driving average for this years event was JB Holmes at 297. 
If memory serves #1 is 300 yards to the front and 3 to cover. #5 is 295 front and 315 to cover. I do not have the yardage book in front of me. As for 18,, based on observation rarely did I see a ball bunkered. I will research the scoring average for the 18th over the past 3-4 years and see what I find.

Average driving distance is irrelevant as is scoring average.
It's the driving distance on each specific hole that's important.
Holes # 1, 2, 5 8 and 18.
If none of the fairway bunkers come into play from the back tees, why did they place the back tees and/or the bunkers in those locations ?

So far, you've only named one course, you've got 9 more to go.

You asked for 10 examples not 10 courses.

First we were discussing "major" courses, but, OK, 10 examples, you've named five that are in dispute, what are the other five ?

I've never seen a hole that was substantively lengthened that became easier, can you name 10 ?

--Are you speaking to member play or back to courses that host majors for professionals ?

Do five of each


--ok

OK ?  OK, where are they ?


Additionally, if length is added to the three shotters many of the better players will resist giving it a go and in the long run probably save shots.

Why would they save shots ?

--Ask Zach Johnson that.

I"m asking you.
You're not going to cite one individual as supporting evidence for a universal statement are you ?

While you're at it, please also cite the holes where this would occur

--Any Par 5 that has added tee length to become more difficult for the better player. The average player will not have the option to go for it and,  regardless of water, they will generally save shots by playing it as a 3 shotter.

But, the average player is NOT going to go back to the lengthened championship tees, he's going to remain where he is on the member's regular tees.

Why can't you grasp that concept ?

Furthermore, If you played the 13th and 15th at ANGC 10 times going for it and 10 times playing it as Zach Johnson did, I guarantee you would save shots by being conservative . You take 6 and 7 out out of the equation. Can't you understand that ?

Wouldn't your exercise depend upon where one's tee shot ended up ?

Why would 7 be in the equation ?
If you go in the creek in two, you drop three, on in four, one or two putts for 5 or 6.
 
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

--Oh really.


Yes, really.

I'll repeat the statement.
Most par 5's don't require a heroic carry over water.

Would you like to make a wager on the accuracy of that statement ?

--Quid or money ??


Both
 
How many times have you said, "that was the last time I go for this green in two"?

I don't think I ever have.
Whether that's a tribute to understanding the risk/reward factor or good judgement I'm not sure, but, the only thing that would disuade me from going for a green in two would be my ability to get to the green in two without having to hit a once in a 100 shot.  It's either within my range or out of my range.  Obviously wind and humidity and the way I feel and am hitting the ball that day will determine my final decision.

--You need to play more three shotters with heroic carries and then we will see what happens.

Name 10 three shotters with heroic carries.

--I can and will,  in due course, 

Well ...... we're waiting !

if it matters to you.

It does

My contention is that added tee length on these type of holes absolutely removes the temptation for the average player and in the long run will save them shots i.e. making it easier.

You're wrong again.
The average player was NEVER going for them in two.

You continually convey PGA Tour abilities upon average golfers.

And, you continue to NOT understand the context of the issue.

It's about local golf clubs.
It's about adding or preserving the challenge for the better golfer and NOT affecting the average or poor golfer.

Do you now understand the issue ?

I've played a good number of par 5's over the years, including some with heroic carries like # 13 and # 15 at ANGC, and there's not one that I wouldn't go for if I was routinely capable of hitting the ball the distance required for the shot at hand.

Exactly. And don't you think Zach could have reached 13 and 15? Of course he could, but the added length (with all else being equal) allowed Johnson to pay to his strength and he  murdered the 5 pars. What do you suppose would have happened if he did try for the heroic shot?  He probably would not be in the 34 long.

The lengthening at # 13 at ANGC was minimal.
The same is probably true at  # 15.

The original length of # 13 in 1934 was 455 Members, 480 Masters
The original length of # 15 in 1934 was 465 Members, 485 Masters.

The last scorecard I have indicates that the following yardages apply.

# 13  455 Members, 510 Masters.
# 15  475 Members, 530 Masters.

# 13 may be closer to 525 from the Masters tee, which is elevated above the other tees.

I wouldn't call the additional length "substantive" in the context of 74 years.

Adding length on Par 3s would support your argument.

Agreed

[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]