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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk Stewart,

I looked at about 8 courses on Google Earth today.
I'll look at more tomorrow.
Strangely, I couldn't find Laurel Valley, a course I visited many years ago.

Might I suggest that you see an eye doctor, sooner rather than later.

There's a distinct difference between a heroic forced carry over water and a shot where water comes into play from the flanks.

Could you therefore please revise your list to conform to the qualifying criteria.

Thanks

[Kirk Stewart]

Kirk Stewart,

I looked at about 8 courses on Google Earth today.
I'll look at more tomorrow.
Strangely, I couldn't find Laurel Valley, a course I visited many years ago.


Try this on for size:





or this if the picture does not work:

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=40.225794~-79.238715&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=24424212&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1


Might I suggest that you see an eye doctor, sooner rather than later.



--I'll take that advice with a grain of salt based on or your assement of Valhalla's 7th. You went from 40-50 yards short of the green to water "flanking" it.


There's a distinct difference between a heroic forced carry over water and a shot where water comes into play from the flanks.


--I agree. That's why you are wrong about Valhalla's 7th assuming one is playing from the left fairway. You do realize there is a split fairway right ?

Could you therefore please revise your list to conform to the qualifying criteria.

Thanks


--Why would I revise anything based on your analysis of Valhalla and your responses towards Laurel Valley and AAC? Perhaps you should tell me which of the 20 do not meet your specifications--other than Medalist and TPC Sawgrass?

Lastly, how do I add color?

 Thanks

[Kirk Stewart]

Patrick,

Here is Laurel Valley's 18th:




and AAC's 18th:

[Sean_A]

I don't know what to tell you other than for the vast majority of clubs (even those hosting local events) shouldn't add yards unless the hole is improved - regardless of the original archie's intent. 

While we all might agree with that, in theory, most local clubs do as they please to achieve the perceived objective.

From my experience, length is an inconsistent indicator of quality. 

I think it's almost a universal indicator of superior ability.

As one who is ambivalent toward regressive changes in equipment I would gladly support the idea if it guaranteed courses (more especially courses I care about) would not be lengthened.  Unfortunately, I don't believe regressive measures will guarantee anything. 

I am leaning more and more toward split rules if the pro game continues to have a negative impact on the heart and soul of the game - the middle to long capper. 

But as I pointed out earlier, so many high cappers not only accept it, they expect to be beaten up on the course.  When did architectural philosophy ever cherish this as a modus operandi? 

To be fair, in this modern world of inclusivity, it is awfully hard to cater for very best and the very worst.  I think in the old days, the gap between best and worst wasn't so wide = perhaps because there were fewer players.

I'd agree, the gap presents a widening dilema for architects and clubs alike.
However, the R&A and the USGA did very little to prevent the gap from expanding

Pat

Very true, clubs do with their course as they wish - hence the reason they are responsible for the outcome.  Blaming tv, the USGA, the PGA or the archie carries no weight with me unless of course the archie sang from a different song sheet!  There are always influencing factors both negative and positive, but as stewards of golf courses, the membership is rightly the last and most important buck. 

Again, I don't blame the USGA/R&A for their reluctance to aggressively curb tech advances.  The game has always been heavily influenced by advances and it has been a tug of war between skill and tech for well over a century.  In a way, you could say the USGA was honouring tradition.  No, for me, the responsibility for courses being lengthened in a knee jerk fashion to "combat" distance is down to the stewards of courses. The inability of some memberships to gain a proper perspective and humble themselves led to the most recent tech advances is indicative of the sort of society we live in - folks always want to mess with things regardless if it is broken or not.  In a way, lack of funds and/or elasticity (as you term it) may be a blessing in disguise for a great many clubs.  There are so many wonderful courses that remains so regardless of what the very best in the game are capable of.  As I stated earlier, if we are going to measure the quality of architecture based on how the best play then we are all in a heap of shit.

Ciao

[Andy Hughes]

And, I don't hear many on this site, especially the Philly connection, complaining about the cross over walks from green to tee at Merion, Lehigh and other clubs.

Pat, I remain curious how you can push for an additional ~ 160 yards per hole yet remain silent on the impact of the course's routing?  On your Sandhills vs Frairs Head thread, you said:

It's hard to believe that someone on this site doesn't understand the significance of green to tee walks.

When you walk off a green at Friar's Head it's not unusual that you're walking onto the next tee.
That presents an intimate, connected, feel.

We can't pan other courses for difficult green to tee walks and give SH a pass.

I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course

Having said all that, do you agree that the solution you are pushing would:
a. lead to a course losing its intimate and connected feel, and
b. lead a course to be panned for its long walks?

And to what end? Is the game really not challenging for that many golfers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I don't play where you play and I don't know the members you know.
But I have to ask--is the game really not challenging for 10% of the members at the courses you play?

What has that got to do with the issue ?
The perception on the part of the powers that be at local clubs is that the distance that golfers are hitting the ball has obsoleted many holes and that in order to return them to their intended challenge, in order to return the interfacing of the architectural features with the golfer, added length is necessary.

Pat, I would think it would be obvious. Your initial premise referenced adding length to increase the challenge for 'better' players. You then defined 'better' players as the top 10% at a club. The obvious question then becomes--do 10% of the golfers at clubs find the game lacking in challenge?

You're missing the point.
It's not the top 10 % who are making the decision, it's the powers that be at local clubs that feel that holes have lost their challenge due to increased  distance .

Clubs tend to react to the incredible distances that golfers are hitting the ball today.

That may be so. It does not mean it is always right.

Being "right" has nothing to do with it.
The fact is that there has been a quantum leap in distance and clubs are reacting to it.  Perhaps the quantum leap in distance isn't "right"

As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage)

That's an absurd suggestion.
These fellows are competing with other golfers who hit the ball just as far.
And you're advising them to use equipment that will put them at a huge competitive disadvantage.  Think about that.
If you're a 2 handicap golfer, and you're playing for money or silver, are you going to use equipment that's 30 years old ?


Actually Pat, it's your suggestion which is not only absurd but also lacking in logic. 

It has NEVER been my suggestion that golfers, competing, should put themselves at a huge disadvantage by playing I&B from 30+ years ago.
Could you cite where I stated that ?

If your 2 handicapper is playing for silver then the perceived challenge of the course is no longer relevant--his competition is the rest of the field and his goal presumably is to win.

That's equally absurd.
His challenge remains, it's the golf course.
That you recommend that he play 30+ year old I&B while the rest of the field plays with contemporary equipment is beyond absurd.

When Tiger plays a classic course during a tournament, does he wish to 'interface' with the architecture or does he wish to win? 

You're confusing perspectives.
The architect intended for the golfer to interface with the architecture.
The golfer, thru technological improvements wants to avoid interfacing with the architecture, just like the Germans did with the Maginot Line.

If so, when can we arrange to play ?

I've told you before, for you I would be willing to dig the clubs out of the garage and dust 'em off. Just give me a few days warning. 

I'm ready when you are.

Also, what is the effect on the course and the routing when 80 yards (the distance you quoted MikeC) are added to the par 4s and 5s? If the tee had been somewhat near the prior green, it likely now would be 80 yards in the wrong direction for a 160 yard round trip.  I assume that would strongly detract from the experience generally.

Your conclusion is flawed because your underlying premise is flawed.
Most architects factor elasticity in to their designs.

Architects may well favor elasticity and for some good reasons. But ask Tom Doak sometime if he would prefer golfers:
a. walk off a green and take 8 steps to the next tee
b. walk off a green and walk 80 yards backwards to the next tee followed by another 80 yard walk to get back to where they started from


The questions presume a predetermined configuration of the holes and predisposes the answer.

Tom Doak, or any architect would probably shy away from a green-tee seperation of only 8 yards.

Why does the golfer have to walk 80 yards backwards ?
Perhaps the old tee was 40 yards forward, thus, he would have to walk the same 40 yards to get to the appropriate tee.

The third portion is equally flawed.
The golfer, after teeing off is not walking any additional distance.
He's playing a golf hole, one that's been lengthened, that's all.

And, I don't hear many on this site, especially the Philly connection, complaining about the cross over walks from green to tee at Merion, Lehigh and other clubs.

Really? Because I have it on the word of a golfing expert that a course like Sand Hills should be marked down for some longer green-to-tee walks. 


You should have that expert explain to you the difference between difficult green to tee walks and crossovers.

Can you imagine what that golfing expert would say if he had to walk another 160 yards each hole just to get to the next tee? 

Your math is as bad as your logic.

When a hole is lengthened, the walk from the tee to your ball becomes an integral part of the hole through the play of the hole.  It's not an unrelated burden.

When # 13 at ANGC was lengthened to prevent 8-iron second shots, do you think the walk from the new back tee to the DZ is related to the play of the hole, or just a burden not related to the play of the game ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

And, I don't hear many on this site, especially the Philly connection, complaining about the cross over walks from green to tee at Merion, Lehigh and other clubs.

Pat, I remain curious how you can push for an additional ~ 160 yards per hole yet remain silent on the impact of the course's routing?  On your Sandhills vs Frairs Head thread, you said:

It's hard to believe that someone on this site doesn't understand the significance of green to tee walks.

When you walk off a green at Friar's Head it's not unusual that you're walking onto the next tee.
That presents an intimate, connected, feel.

We can't pan other courses for difficult green to tee walks and give SH a pass.

I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course

Having said all that, do you agree that the solution you are pushing would:
a. lead to a course losing its intimate and connected feel, and
b. lead a course to be panned for its long walks?

a. NO, I don't since most courses have the element of elasticity inherent in
    their design.

    Has Winged Foot, Pinehurst # 2 or ANGC lost their intimate and
    connected feel ?

b. Did it ever occur to you that lengthening a hole might shorten the walk
    from the previous green ?

And to what end?

The end is to restore the intent of the architectural features.
Namely, that they continue to interface with the golfer and not be vestigial organs.

Is the game really not challenging for that many golfers?

For you to claim that there's no distance problem and that courses shouldn't be lengthened in the face of increased distance, is absurd.

Why do you think there aren't any 6,300 yard courses that host tournaments ?

Answer, because the course isn't challenging enough for the competitors.

Haven't you been reading Mike Cirba's posts ?
14 Handicaps hit the ball 200 yards with their 5 irons.
They must hit their drives close to 300 yards.
Imagine how low handicap golfers hit the ball

[Patrick_Mucci]

I looked at about 8 courses on Google Earth today.
I'll look at more tomorrow.
Strangely, I couldn't find Laurel Valley, a course I visited many years ago.

Might I suggest that you see an eye doctor, sooner rather than later.

--I'll take that advice with a grain of salt based on or your assement of Valhalla's 7th. You went from 40-50 yards short of the green to water "flanking" it.

That's my mistake, I was looking at # 18.

There's a distinct difference between a heroic forced carry over water and a shot where water comes into play from the flanks.

--I agree. That's why you are wrong about Valhalla's 7th assuming one is playing from the left fairway. You do realize there is a split fairway right ?

When a golfer has a choice, it's not a heroic forced carry.

A heroic forced carry is what a golfer faces on # 15 at ANGC.
He can't go left or right, he must carry the fronting water.

Could you therefore please revise your list to conform to the qualifying criteria.

Thanks

--Why would I revise anything based on your analysis of Valhalla and your responses towards Laurel Valley and AAC?

Because you were wrong in your assessment with the great majority of the holes I looked at on Google Earth.

I never responded on Laurel Valley and AAC because I couldn't view LV and didn't have the time to get beyond viewing courses in Florida.

To date, you're wrong in your assessment of the majority of par 5's I viewed on Google Earth.   They don't require heroic forced carries, hence, you need to revise your list to be more intellectually honest.

Somehow, you seem to dismiss the fact that you cited holes as having a heroic forced carry, when none exists.

Perhaps you should tell me which of the 20 do not meet your specifications--other than Medalist and TPC Sawgrass?

Why would you cite holes that you knew didn't have heroic forced carries, as having heroic forced carries ?

Should we now look at every claim you make with a degree of enlightened suspicion ?

I asked you to cite 20 courses and you falsified your response.

False in one, false in many.

Lastly, how do I add color?

It's simple, merely place a bracket [ in front of the word "color=,  after "color= type in the color you want, like "green", blue, etc..then type in the close bracket ].  Then when you've finished typing the text, just type in the bracket [, a back slash "/" the word "color" and the back bracket ] and your set to go.

I'll use ( instead of [ to show you.

(color=green)  test (/color)  Instead of using ( and ), use [ and ]
 

[Andy Hughes]

It's hard to believe that someone on this site doesn't understand the significance of green to tee walks.
When you walk off a green at Friar's Head it's not unusual that you're walking onto the next tee.
That presents an intimate, connected, feel.
We can't pan other courses for difficult green to tee walks and give SH a pass.
I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course

Having said all that, do you agree that the solution you are pushing would:
a. lead to a course losing its intimate and connected feel, and
b. lead a course to be panned for its long walks?

a. NO, I don't since most courses have the element of elasticity inherent in
    their design.

    Has Winged Foot, Pinehurst # 2 or ANGC lost their intimate and
    connected feel ?
Pat, I can't comment on courses I have not played. But please do understand that those were your words quoted above in a different context so you are now arguing with yourself. Please let me know how that turns out

b. Did it ever occur to you that lengthening a hole might shorten the walk
    from the previous green ?
That would not be the norm.  Please give me 10 examples of courses where lengthening the par 4s and 5s by 80 yards would lead to an overall shortening of the walk.


Is the game really not challenging for that many golfers?
For you to claim that there's no distance problem and that courses shouldn't be lengthened in the face of increased distance, is absurd.
Pat, please begin wearing the reading glasses.  Please note I referenced the 'challenge', not distance. Is the game not challenging for the top 10% of members at most clubs?

Why do you think there aren't any 6,300 yard courses that host tournaments ?
Answer, because the course isn't challenging enough for the competitors.
While that is true, it is not relevent. Your contention earlier related to members at their own course, not the hosting of tournaments so you are trying to shift the subject here. That's fine, but do please let me know.
But even as it relates to a tournament of highly skilled players, so what if a course is 6300 yards long? The goal of those competing is to win so the difficulty or ease of the course is not relevant. The winner may shoot +5 or he may shoot -10. But this is not germane to a course and its members as originally stated.  

Haven't you been reading Mike Cirba's posts ?
14 Handicaps hit the ball 200 yards with their 5 irons.
They must hit their drives close to 300 yards.
Imagine how low handicap golfers hit the ball
I clearly need new equipment.  

[Andy Hughes]

You're missing the point.
It's not the top 10 % who are making the decision, it's the powers that be at local clubs that feel that holes have lost their challenge due to increased  distance .

I am sure you are correct about that. I thought we were discussing whether that lengthening should be taking place.  In that context, I was asking whether those 10% have found the game has lost its challenge at their home clubs. Sincere question--at the clubs you play at, do the members feel that way, and maybe more importantly have their handicaps reflected that?

It has NEVER been my suggestion that golfers, competing, should put themselves at a huge disadvantage by playing I&B from 30+ years ago.
Could you cite where I stated that ?

Pat, this thread originated with the members in mind. If that was not your intent, I misunderstood you. But you were the one who brought tournaments for better players into the mix, not I.

If your 2 handicapper is playing for silver then the perceived challenge of the course is no longer relevant--his competition is the rest of the field and his goal presumably is to win.

That's equally absurd.
His challenge remains, it's the golf course.
That you recommend that he play 30+ year old I&B while the rest of the field plays with contemporary equipment is beyond absurd.
Yes, that would be absurd. Its also not at all what I said. Please point out in the section you quoted where I said a competitor should use 30 year old equipment?

The golfer, thru technological improvements wants to avoid interfacing with the architecture, just like the Germans did with the Maginot Line.

Pat, can you please cite 10 instances where the Germans avoided interfacing with the architecture as the gca intended it?

Why does the golfer have to walk 80 yards backwards ?
Perhaps the old tee was 40 yards forward, thus, he would have to walk the same 40 yards to get to the appropriate tee.

Does there truly seem like the norm to you?

The third portion is equally flawed.
The golfer, after teeing off is not walking any additional distance.
He's playing a golf hole, one that's been lengthened, that's all.

That's a mere semantic difference. If you have added 80 yards back and the the same 80 yards forward no matter how you label those 80 yards back they are still 80 yards tha must be walked. They may be part of the hole now but unless you also plan on installing moving sidewalks those 80 yards must still be traversed. 

When a hole is lengthened, the walk from the tee to your ball becomes an integral part of the hole through the play of the hole.  It's not an unrelated burden.

Agreed. But you have still added 160 yards to the overall walk for that hole no matter how you relabel that walk. Its also possible that adding so much length will cause the golfer to have to retrace his steps which detracts from the 'walk in the park'.

[Kirk Stewart]

I looked at about 8 courses on Google Earth today.
I'll look at more tomorrow.
Strangely, I couldn't find Laurel Valley, a course I visited many years ago.

Might I suggest that you see an eye doctor, sooner rather than later.

--I'll take that advice with a grain of salt based on or your assement of Valhalla's 7th. You went from 40-50 yards short of the green to water "flanking" it.

That's my mistake, I was looking at # 18.

There's a distinct difference between a heroic forced carry over water and a shot where water comes into play from the flanks.

--I agree. That's why you are wrong about Valhalla's 7th assuming one is playing from the left fairway. You do realize there is a split fairway right ?

When a golfer has a choice, it's not a heroic forced carry.

A heroic forced carry is what a golfer faces on # 15 at ANGC.
He can't go left or right, he must carry the fronting water.

Could you therefore please revise your list to conform to the qualifying criteria.

Thanks

--Why would I revise anything based on your analysis of Valhalla and your responses towards Laurel Valley and AAC?

Because you were wrong in your assessment with the great majority of the holes I looked at on Google Earth.

I never responded on Laurel Valley and AAC because I couldn't view LV and didn't have the time to get beyond viewing courses in Florida.

To date, you're wrong in your assessment of the majority of par 5's I viewed on Google Earth.   They don't require heroic forced carries, hence, you need to revise your list to be more intellectually honest.

Somehow, you seem to dismiss the fact that you cited holes as having a heroic forced carry, when none exists.

Perhaps you should tell me which of the 20 do not meet your specifications--other than Medalist and TPC Sawgrass?

Why would you cite holes that you knew didn't have heroic forced carries, as having heroic forced carries ?

Should we now look at every claim you make with a degree of enlightened suspicion ?

I asked you to cite 20 courses and you falsified your response.

False in one, false in many.

Lastly, how do I add color?

It's simple, merely place a bracket [ in front of the word "color=,  after "color= type in the color you want, like "green", blue, etc..then type in the close bracket ].  Then when you've finished typing the text, just type in the bracket [, a back slash "/" the word "color" and the back bracket ] and your set to go.

I'll use ( instead of [ to show you.

(color=green)  test (/color)  Instead of using ( and ), use [ and ]
 

PM,

Thanks for the heads up on color. I will spend the next few days revising/updating my list to include holes that meet your litmus test.

As mentioned these where off the top of my head and it was late if memory serves. When you are standing in the FW on 18 at Medalist or 16 at Sawgrass, the eye may see one thing and the brain another.

Do we agree on LV, Valhalla, and Atl Athletic Club? 17 more ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's hard to believe that someone on this site doesn't understand the significance of green to tee walks.
When you walk off a green at Friar's Head it's not unusual that you're walking onto the next tee.
That presents an intimate, connected, feel.
We can't pan other courses for difficult green to tee walks and give SH a pass.
I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course

Having said all that, do you agree that the solution you are pushing would:
a. lead to a course losing its intimate and connected feel, and
b. lead a course to be panned for its long walks?

a. NO, I don't since most courses have the element of elasticity inherent in
    their design.

    Has Winged Foot, Pinehurst # 2 or ANGC lost their intimate and
    connected feel ?

Pat, I can't comment on courses I have not played. But please do understand that those were your words quoted above in a different context so you are now arguing with yourself. Please let me know how that turns out

Those are my words as it pertains to a specific site, Sand Hills.
Those words didn't convey universality.
That's your erroneous, quantum leap.


b. Did it ever occur to you that lengthening a hole might shorten the walk from the previous green ?

That would not be the norm.


Why wouldn't it be the norm ?
You've confined your position, erroneously to a unique linear arrangement, one that's generally not applicable 

Please give me 10 examples of courses where lengthening the par 4s and 5s by 80 yards would lead to an overall shortening of the walk.

Let's start with the 2nd at WFW, the 3rd at WFW, the 9th at WFW, 17 at WFW, 18 at WFW.

We could also go to the 3rd at GCGC, 14th at GCGC, 17th at GCGC and the 18th at GCGC.

There are hundreds if not thousands of examples.

You remain, erroneously confined, in a single linear configuration where the tee is both forward and perpendicular to the previous green.

Is the game really not challenging for that many golfers?

For you to claim that there's no distance problem and that courses shouldn't be lengthened in the face of increased distance, is absurd.

Pat, please begin wearing the reading glasses.  Please note I referenced the 'challenge', not distance. Is the game not challenging for the top 10% of members at most clubs?

That's not the issue.
The issue is the perception by the powers that be at local clubs that some of their holes have become outmoded, vis a vis enhanced distance, and in order to return the holes/features to relevancy, only increased distance will accomplish that, efficiently and cheaply, WITHOUT impacting the rest of the membership

Why do you think there aren't any 6,300 yard courses that host tournaments ?

Answer, because the course isn't challenging enough for the competitors.

While that is true, it is not relevent. Your contention earlier related to members at their own course, not the hosting of tournaments so you are trying to shift the subject here.


No, I'm not.
Every club holds tournaments, club championships, member-member championships, gross and net, etc., etc..

That's fine, but do please let me know.
But even as it relates to a tournament of highly skilled players, so what if a course is 6300 yards long? The goal of those competing is to win so the difficulty or ease of the course is not relevant. The winner may shoot +5 or he may shoot -10. But this is not germane to a course and its members as originally stated.

It is germane in the context that members take a pride in their course's resistance to scoring.

Many don't care who wins, other than a local favorite, but, they do care if the course yields low to very low scores.  Somehow that connotes an air of inferiority in their minds.  

Haven't you been reading Mike Cirba's posts ?
14 Handicaps hit the ball 200 yards with their 5 irons.
They must hit their drives close to 300 yards.
Imagine how low handicap golfers hit the ball

I clearly need new equipment.  

I agree, that's why I want to meet these fellows.
I want to know what they're playing and what drugs they're taking

[Patrick_Mucci]

You're missing the point.
It's not the top 10 % who are making the decision, it's the powers that be at local clubs that feel that holes have lost their challenge due to increased  distance .

I am sure you are correct about that. I thought we were discussing whether that lengthening should be taking place.  In that context, I was asking whether those 10% have found the game has lost its challenge at their home clubs.

Sincere question--at the clubs you play at, do the members feel that way, and maybe more importantly have their handicaps reflected that?

I think the following may happen.
Older members play with the sons of members who are in high school or college.  They are shocked by the disparity in their game versus the youngsters game.  They may take 3 or 4 shots to reach a par 5 that this youngster hits with a drive and an iron, maybe even a mid to short iron.

Thus, the alarm goes out, the hole/course has lost its defense against a new generation of golfer.

What to do about it ?

If they mess with any feature other than tee length, it will affect EVERY golfer, so, by default, the solution is to lengthen the tees.

I don't have a problem with this, IF, and it's a big IF, others aren't forced to play the new back tee.

In other words, I'd favor the retention of the current back tees, with a new "championship" tee.  If the course presently played at 6,800 from the blue tees, when the course adds length, make sure that the blue tees still play from approximately 6,800 yards, but that the black tees play from X yards.   This minimizes the impact to those golfers who currently play from the blue tees, but, it lets the long hitters play from longer tees, if they'd like.

It's also important to rate the course from the new tees for handicap purposes.

It has NEVER been my suggestion that golfers, competing, should put themselves at a huge disadvantage by playing I&B from 30+ years ago.
Could you cite where I stated that ?

Pat, this thread originated with the members in mind. If that was not your intent, I misunderstood you. But you were the one who brought tournaments for better players into the mix, not I.

Clubs hold their own member tournaments, both gross and net.
Clubs are usually populated with the better, average and poor golfer.

If your 2 handicapper is playing for silver then the perceived challenge of the course is no longer relevant--his competition is the rest of the field and his goal presumably is to win.

That's equally absurd.
His challenge remains, it's the golf course.
That you recommend that he play 30+ year old I&B while the rest of the field plays with contemporary equipment is beyond absurd.

Yes, that would be absurd. Its also not at all what I said. Please point out in the section you quoted where I said a competitor should use 30 year old equipment?

As you wish.
Here's your quote from reply # 42:
"As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage"

The golfer, thru technological improvements wants to avoid interfacing with the architecture, just like the Germans did with the Maginot Line.

Pat, can you please cite 10 instances where the Germans avoided interfacing with the architecture as the gca intended it?

Read up on the Maginot Line, where the Germans universally avoided it.

Why does the golfer have to walk 80 yards backwards ?
Perhaps the old tee was 40 yards forward, thus, he would have to walk the same 40 yards to get to the appropriate tee.

Does there truly seem like the norm to you?


Yes, it's normal.

The third portion is equally flawed.
The golfer, after teeing off is not walking any additional distance.
He's playing a golf hole, one that's been lengthened, that's all.

That's a mere semantic difference.

Not at all, it's a fact.

If you have added 80 yards back and the the same 80 yards forward no matter how you label those 80 yards back they are still 80 yards tha must be walked. They may be part of the hole now but unless you also plan on installing moving sidewalks those 80 yards must still be traversed. 

You're wrong again.

Let's take # 18 at GCGC.
The tee to the hole is about 80+ yards away from # 17 green.
If I extend the tee back 60 yards, it will only be 20+ yards from the 17th green.  In other words, I haven't added one foot of additional walking, yet, I've lengthened the hole by 60 yards.

The same applies at WFW # 2 and others.

You've painted yourself into a corner that only considers one linear/spacial relationship between tee and previous green, when other configurations abound.

When a hole is lengthened, the walk from the tee to your ball becomes an integral part of the hole through the play of the hole.  It's not an unrelated burden.

Agreed. But you have still added 160 yards to the overall walk for that hole no matter how you relabel that walk.

No, you haven't.

You're blindly attributing but one linear/spacial relationship to the configuration of tee and previous green, one that's not a universal.

If that was the configuration, then I'd have to give the architect a lot of credit for incorporating elasticity into the design of that hole.

You can't lengthen a hole and expect it to be an equal walk/distance.
Please tell me that you understand that.

Its also possible that adding so much length will cause the golfer to have to retrace his steps which detracts from the 'walk in the park'.

Once again, you've chosen to make the extension one dimensional and universal.

I don't mind walking to a back tee versus a member tee.
It's an inherent architectural feature when elasticity was incorporated into the original design.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kirk Stewart,

I'll take your word for it on LV, Valhalla and AAC, even though I haven't had a chance to review them on Google Earth.

LV and AAC might have been revamped since I last played there, but, forced, heroic carries, ie, # 15 at ANGC aren't incorporated in the majority of par 5's, they're the exception rather than the rule.

Good luck on the color.

I forgot how to do size, can anyone refresh my memory ?
TEPaul, please don't apply.

[Andy Hughes]

It's hard to believe that someone on this site doesn't understand the significance of green to tee walks.
When you walk off a green at Friar's Head it's not unusual that you're walking onto the next tee.
That presents an intimate, connected, feel.
We can't pan other courses for difficult green to tee walks and give SH a pass.
I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course

Those are my words as it pertains to a specific site, Sand Hills.
Those words didn't convey universality.
That's your erroneous, quantum leap.

No Pat, that's not what it is. It is you clearly trying to backtrack from your very clear statements. "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" can in no way be twisted to mean only Sand Hills.

Please give me 10 examples of courses where lengthening the par 4s and 5s by 80 yards would lead to an overall shortening of the walk.

Let's start with the 2nd at WFW, the 3rd at WFW, the 9th at WFW, 17 at WFW, 18 at WFW.
We could also go to the 3rd at GCGC, 14th at GCGC, 17th at GCGC and the 18th at GCGC.
There are hundreds if not thousands of examples.
You remain, erroneously confined, in a single linear configuration where the tee is both forward and perpendicular to the previous green.
If I am erroneous as you claim and you are right that there are thousands of examples, then it should be trivial for you to find 10 courses which would have their overall walk shortened by adding 80 yards to the par 4s and 5s. To date, you have not listed any.

It is germane in the context that members take a pride in their course's resistance to scoring.
Many don't care who wins, other than a local favorite, but, they do care if the course yields low to very low scores.  Somehow that connotes an air of inferiority in their minds. 

Aha! At last we get to a real issue. On this, finally, you are right.  I agree many members likely think that way, and if that is your issue then we agree. Might point, though, is that is not a good reason to make such a change--i.e. many on thise site have said highly skilled players would score quite nicely at Cypress Point, but I don't believe that is reason enough to make big, expensive changes.

While that is true, it is not relevent. Your contention earlier related to members at their own course, not the hosting of tournaments so you are trying to shift the subject here.

No, I'm not.
Every club holds tournaments, club championships, member-member championships, gross and net, etc., etc..

What percentage of the participants in a club's club championships, member-member championships, gross and net etc tournaments find the course lacks challenge? What percentage truly shoot scores that scandalize the membership?

[Andy Hughes]

Yes, that would be absurd. Its also not at all what I said. Please point out in the section you quoted where I said a competitor should use 30 year old equipment?

As you wish.
Here's your quote from reply # 42:
"As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage"

Pat, c'mon, you know as well as I that there was no connection to tournament golf with that statement.  We both also know that you had to go back a ways to find that rather than finding it in the quote you originally quoted and were responding to. Other than that, not bad

Let's take # 18 at GCGC.
The tee to the hole is about 80+ yards away from # 17 green.
If I extend the tee back 60 yards, it will only be 20+ yards from the 17th green.  In other words, I haven't added one foot of additional walking, yet, I've lengthened the hole by 60 yards.
The same applies at WFW # 2 and others.
You've painted yourself into a corner that only considers one linear/spacial relationship between tee and previous green, when other configurations abound.

Fortunately, I am good with a brush.
I notice that you can only find odds and ends to illustrate your point. They also happen to be holes I have never seen though I trust you are correct.

Let's take a course we are both familiar with so we can discuss. The only ones I can think of are Augusta National and the Old Course. Let's go hole by hole and see if adding 80 yards to each par 4 and 5 adds quite a distance to the walk, or as you claim it is quite common to add 80 yards to a hole and not have any real lengthening of the walk. (for the sake of argument, lets assume land ownership is not an issue or holes crossing etc.  Your 80 yard lengthening idea would not be practical in other words on all holes but we can leave that aside just for comparison). Which course should we choose?

You can't lengthen a hole and expect it to be an equal walk/distance.
Please tell me that you understand that.

Yes, I do, but then you are the one who has for some odd reason decided to back that horse. Remember, I am the one saying it will add a lot to the walk if you add 80 yards to each hole, while you are the one saying otherwise. Though it is an interesting concept to actually trade sides in the middle of a debate  Pat, I think you are on to something!

Once again, you've chosen to make the extension one dimensional and universal.

I am quite open to being proven wrong. Let's test it as I suggested above. Should we use the Old Course or Augusta National?

[Andy Hughes]

I think the following may happen.
Older members play with the sons of members who are in high school or college.  They are shocked by the disparity in their game versus the youngsters game.  They may take 3 or 4 shots to reach a par 5 that this youngster hits with a drive and an iron, maybe even a mid to short iron.

Thus, the alarm goes out, the hole/course has lost its defense against a new generation of golfer.

What to do about it ?

If they mess with any feature other than tee length, it will affect EVERY golfer, so, by default, the solution is to lengthen the tees.

I don't have a problem with this, IF, and it's a big IF, others aren't forced to play the new back tee.

In other words, I'd favor the retention of the current back tees, with a new "championship" tee.  If the course presently played at 6,800 from the blue tees, when the course adds length, make sure that the blue tees still play from approximately 6,800 yards, but that the black tees play from X yards.   This minimizes the impact to those golfers who currently play from the blue tees, but, it lets the long hitters play from longer tees, if they'd like.

It's also important to rate the course from the new tees for handicap purposes.

Pat, been thinking about this.  There is my perspective, which thinks the potential high cost and disfiguring of the course and change in the way the course plays should be balanced against the necessity and the real reasons.  And there is the perspective of the member of a course himself, who perhaps values his club's reputation in terms of difficulty.  Obviously, a membership can do as it pleases to their course, but from my perspective the reputation would not even make the list of reasons. 
The goal should be an enjoyable, challenging course that brings pleasure--all the rest pales in comparison.

Also, on a tangent--I don't believe you will truly have the better player interfacing with the architecture as intended by the architect even if you add the yardage. Yes, he may now have to flirt with a fairway bunker, but he now will be hitting an 8 iron into a green rather than a 4 iron or whatever else as originally conceived. Minor point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's hard to believe that someone on this site doesn't understand the significance of green to tee walks.
When you walk off a green at Friar's Head it's not unusual that you're walking onto the next tee.
That presents an intimate, connected, feel.
We can't pan other courses for difficult green to tee walks and give SH a pass.
I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course

Those are my words as it pertains to a specific site, Sand Hills.
Those words didn't convey universality.
That's your erroneous, quantum leap.

No Pat, that's not what it is. It is you clearly trying to backtrack from your very clear statements. "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" can in no way be twisted to mean only Sand Hills.

I've come to grips with the fact that you "don't get it" and that trying to clarify and explain things to you is tedius because your learning curve is so flat.

You've automatically assumed that adding length to a hole, vis a vis tee lengthening, universally lengthens the walk from the previous green to that tee, when it clearly doesn't.

I cited for you the 2nd at WFW and the 18th at GCGC as perfect examples of where lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension SHORTENS the walk from the previous green to the tee.

Why can't you understand that ?

Please give me 10 examples of courses where lengthening the par 4s and 5s by 80 yards would lead to an overall shortening of the walk.

Let's start with the 2nd at WFW, the 3rd at WFW, the 9th at WFW, 17 at WFW, 18 at WFW.
We could also go to the 3rd at GCGC, 14th at GCGC, 17th at GCGC and the 18th at GCGC.
There are hundreds if not thousands of examples.
You remain, erroneously confined, in a single linear configuration where the tee is both forward and perpendicular to the previous green.

If I am erroneous as you claim and you are right that there are thousands of examples, then it should be trivial for you to find 10 courses which would have their overall walk shortened by adding 80 yards to the par 4s and 5s. To date, you have not listed any.

Firstly, it appears that you've conceded defeat on the original debate with respect to lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension, and not increasing the walk from green to tee.

Secondly, I never suggested that every par 4 and par 5 be lengthened by 80 yards, that's your ridiculous proposition.

Thirdly, you now put forth the ridiculous, if not assinine, proposition that a golf course is going to lengthen EVERY par 4 and par 5 by 80 yards, adding 1,120 to 1,200 yards to the golf course.

Creating a ridiculously dumb, extreme proposition is the only way you can hope to justify your seriously flawed position.  Unfortunately, the only thing you've done is to create a ridiculously, dumb, extreme proposition, the reality of which, only resides within your mind.

It is germane in the context that members take a pride in their course's resistance to scoring.
Many don't care who wins, other than a local favorite, but, they do care if the course yields low to very low scores.  Somehow that connotes an air of inferiority in their minds. 

Aha! At last we get to a real issue.
On this, finally, you are right. 


I knew that all along

I agree many members likely think that way, and if that is your issue then we agree. Might point, though, is that is not a good reason to make such a change--i.e. many on thise site have said highly skilled players would score quite nicely at Cypress Point, but I don't believe that is reason enough to make big, expensive changes.

Why do you state that tee lengthening is a big, expensive project ?

While that is true, it is not relevent. Your contention earlier related to members at their own course, not the hosting of tournaments so you are trying to shift the subject here.

No, I'm not.
Every club holds tournaments, club championships, member-member championships, gross and net, etc., etc..

What percentage of the participants in a club's club championships, member-member championships, gross and net etc tournaments find the course lacks challenge? What percentage truly shoot scores that scandalize the membership?

For the umpteenth time, you're missing the point, it's not the participants/competitors, it's the powers that be that perceive the need to enhance the challenge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yes, that would be absurd. Its also not at all what I said. Please point out in the section you quoted where I said a competitor should use 30 year old equipment?

As you wish.
Here's your quote from reply # 42:
"As always, I will fall back on my belief that those who find they hit the ball entirely too far and find the game too trivially easy should put there titanium clubs in the closet and retrieve their persimmons and blades out of the garage"

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.

We both also know that you had to go back a ways to find that rather than finding it in the quote you originally quoted and were responding to. Other than that, not bad

I only had to go back to reply # 42 in this thread.
That's not too far to travel to prove a point.

Let's take # 18 at GCGC.
The tee to the hole is about 80+ yards away from # 17 green.
If I extend the tee back 60 yards, it will only be 20+ yards from the 17th green.  In other words, I haven't added one foot of additional walking, yet, I've lengthened the hole by 60 yards.
The same applies at WFW # 2 and others.
You've painted yourself into a corner that only considers one linear/spacial relationship between tee and previous green, when other configurations abound.

Fortunately, I am good with a brush.
I notice that you can only find odds and ends to illustrate your point. They also happen to be holes I have never seen though I trust you are correct.


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.

Let's take a course we are both familiar with so we can discuss. The only ones I can think of are Augusta National and the Old Course. Let's go hole by hole and see if adding 80 yards to each par 4 and 5 adds quite a distance to the walk, or as you claim it is quite common to add 80 yards to a hole and not have any real lengthening of the walk. (for the sake of argument, lets assume land ownership is not an issue or holes crossing etc.  Your 80 yard lengthening idea would not be practical in other words on all holes but we can leave that aside just for comparison). Which course should we choose?

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

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

You can't lengthen a hole and expect it to be an equal walk/distance.
Please tell me that you understand that.

Yes, I do, but then you are the one who has for some odd reason decided to back that horse. Remember, I am the one saying it will add a lot to the walk if you add 80 yards to each hole, while you are the one saying otherwise.

That's NOT TRUE.
You're the only lunatic suggesting the addition of 80 yards to every hole.

Though it is an interesting concept to actually trade sides in the middle of a debate  Pat, I think you are on to something!

I realize that the incorporation of linear and non-linear concepts in the context on non-perpendicularity may be confusing, but, I was hoping that the thousands of letters I've typed on the subject would have conveyed some sort of understanding.  Obviously, I've failed miserably.  You're begining to make TEPaul seem like a genius, and that's not easy to do.

Once again, you've chosen to make the extension one dimensional and universal.

I am quite open to being proven wrong. Let's test it as I suggested above. Should we use the Old Course or Augusta National?

No, let's use Winged Foot West.
I'll use Winged Foot East next.

However, when # 5 at ANGC was lengthened, it brought the tee closer to the previous green.

The same can be said about # 6 tee and # 7 tee.

On the back nine, # 11 and # 17 and at one time, # 18.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think the following may happen.
Older members play with the sons of members who are in high school or college.  They are shocked by the disparity in their game versus the youngsters game.  They may take 3 or 4 shots to reach a par 5 that this youngster hits with a drive and an iron, maybe even a mid to short iron.

Thus, the alarm goes out, the hole/course has lost its defense against a new generation of golfer.

What to do about it ?

If they mess with any feature other than tee length, it will affect EVERY golfer, so, by default, the solution is to lengthen the tees.

I don't have a problem with this, IF, and it's a big IF, others aren't forced to play the new back tee.

In other words, I'd favor the retention of the current back tees, with a new "championship" tee.  If the course presently played at 6,800 from the blue tees, when the course adds length, make sure that the blue tees still play from approximately 6,800 yards, but that the black tees play from X yards.   This minimizes the impact to those golfers who currently play from the blue tees, but, it lets the long hitters play from longer tees, if they'd like.

It's also important to rate the course from the new tees for handicap purposes.

Pat, been thinking about this.  There is my perspective, which thinks the potential high cost and disfiguring of the course and change in the way the course plays should be balanced against the necessity and the real reasons. 

1  Adding length, vis a vis tee extensions does NOT disfigure a golf course.
2  The cost to extend tees is NOT high
3  Adding length to the current back tee does not change the way the
    course plays for anyone other than the better players who will play
    those tees.

And there is the perspective of the member of a course himself, who perhaps values his club's reputation in terms of difficulty.  Obviously, a membership can do as it pleases to their course, but from my perspective the reputation would not even make the list of reasons.

Obviously, the members at an enormous number of clubs disagrees with you.
 
The goal should be an enjoyable, challenging course that brings pleasure--all the rest pales in comparison.

If the course is ONLY changed for the best golfers, whose games have been enhanced by hi-tech equipment, such that the distance they hit the ball no longer enables them to interface with the INTENDED architecture, your goal has remained as is for all other golfers, and that goal has been restored for the best golfers.

No harm, no foul.

Also, on a tangent--I don't believe you will truly have the better player interfacing with the architecture as intended by the architect even if you add the yardage.

Of course you will.

Yes, he may now have to flirt with a fairway bunker, but he now will be hitting an 8 iron into a green rather than a 4 iron or whatever else as originally conceived. Minor point.

That's incorrect.

The golfer won't have to "flirt" with fairway bunkers, he'll have to recon with them, in his head, on the tee and if he hits into them.

And now, instead of him hitting a wedge into the green, if the tee was lengthened by 40-60-80 yards, he'll have to hit far more club, perhaps 4, 6 or 8 more club lengths, which is closer to what the original architect intended.

Tell me that you understand that.

[Andy Hughes]

No Pat, that's not what it is. It is you clearly trying to backtrack from your very clear statements. "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" can in no way be twisted to mean only Sand Hills.

I've come to grips with the fact that you "don't get it" and that trying to clarify and explain things to you is tedius because your learning curve is so flat.
You've automatically assumed that adding length to a hole, vis a vis tee lengthening, universally lengthens the walk from the previous green to that tee, when it clearly doesn't.
I cited for you the 2nd at WFW and the 18th at GCGC as perfect examples of where lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension SHORTENS the walk from the previous green to the tee.

Why can't you understand that ?
You are not even coming close to justifying your statements about walking a golf course, you get that
right?  You claimed it was Sand Hills specific when it clearly wasn't. Just fess up, you'll feel better,
PS I agree, lengthening a hole does not automatically and every time increase the walk.  But the ratio is so extreme in my experience that your few examples do nothing to tip the scales.

Firstly, it appears that you've conceded defeat on the original debate with respect to lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension, and not increasing the walk from green to tee.

Secondly, you are hallucinating. Where did I say that??  Have you been nipping at TEPs flask again?

Creating a ridiculously dumb, extreme proposition is the only way you can hope to justify your seriously flawed position.  Unfortunately, the only thing you've done is to create a ridiculously, dumb, extreme proposition, the reality of which, only resides within your mind.

If using 80 yards is extreme, then you have yourself to blame. You used that number for comparisons sake, not me. I am merely following your lead.

Why do you state that tee lengthening is a big, expensive project ?

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

For the umpteenth time, you're missing the point, it's not the participants/competitors, it's the powers that be that perceive the need to enhance the challenge.

I get that, and have. But my point remains, how often and for how many members is a course in reality not challenging versus what is perceived by those powers that be?

[Patrick_Mucci]

No Pat, that's not what it is. It is you clearly trying to backtrack from your very clear statements. "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" can in no way be twisted to mean only Sand Hills.

I've come to grips with the fact that you "don't get it" and that trying to clarify and explain things to you is tedius because your learning curve is so flat.
You've automatically assumed that adding length to a hole, vis a vis tee lengthening, universally lengthens the walk from the previous green to that tee, when it clearly doesn't.

I cited for you the 2nd at WFW and the 18th at GCGC as perfect examples of where lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension SHORTENS the walk from the previous green to the tee.

Why can't you understand that ?

You are not even coming close to justifying your statements about walking a golf course, you get that right? 

You claimed it was Sand Hills specific when it clearly wasn't.
Just fess up, you'll feel better.

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.

PS I agree, lengthening a hole does not automatically and every time increase the walk. 

But the ratio is so extreme in my experience that your few examples do nothing to tip the scales.

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.

Firstly, it appears that you've conceded defeat on the original debate with respect to lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension, and not increasing the walk from green to tee.

Secondly, you are hallucinating. Where did I say that??  Have you been nipping at TEPs flask again?

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.

Creating a ridiculously dumb, extreme proposition is the only way you can hope to justify your seriously flawed position.  Unfortunately, the only thing you've done is to create a ridiculously, dumb, extreme proposition, the reality of which, only resides within your mind.

If using 80 yards is extreme, then you have yourself to blame. You used that number for comparisons sake, not me. I am merely following your lead.


That's right, I used 80 yards, 60 yards and 40 yards as an example on ONE hole.  You chose to expand the one hole example to ALL of the par 4's and par 5's on the golf course, an absolutely ridiculous, absurd position, that you, and only you created.

Why do you state that tee lengthening is a big, expensive project ?

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.

Please stay within the confines of reality.

For the umpteenth time, you're missing the point, it's not the participants/competitors, it's the powers that be that perceive the need to enhance the challenge.

I get that, and have.

Good, then I'll consider that acknowledgement as evidence that I'm making progress with you.

But my point remains, how often and for how many members is a course in reality not challenging versus what is perceived by those powers that be?

That's immaterial.
The frequency and quantity doesn't matter.
Perception becomes the reality.
And, when the powers that be perceive that a hole has lost its defenses to the advances of hi-tech, they seek to remedy that issue, and they remedy it by lengthening holes.

The proof is clear and irrefutable
Golf course after golf course, local clubs and clubs that host tournaments, have lengthened their holes for the reason/s I state.

Unless, you want to deny that courses have been lengthened over the last 10-20-30 years.

[Sean_A]

No Pat, that's not what it is. It is you clearly trying to backtrack from your very clear statements. "I think it's an important factor when evaluating a golf course" can in no way be twisted to mean only Sand Hills.

I've come to grips with the fact that you "don't get it" and that trying to clarify and explain things to you is tedius because your learning curve is so flat.
You've automatically assumed that adding length to a hole, vis a vis tee lengthening, universally lengthens the walk from the previous green to that tee, when it clearly doesn't.

I cited for you the 2nd at WFW and the 18th at GCGC as perfect examples of where lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension SHORTENS the walk from the previous green to the tee.

Why can't you understand that ?

You are not even coming close to justifying your statements about walking a golf course, you get that right? 

You claimed it was Sand Hills specific when it clearly wasn't.
Just fess up, you'll feel better.

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.

PS I agree, lengthening a hole does not automatically and every time increase the walk. 

But the ratio is so extreme in my experience that your few examples do nothing to tip the scales.

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.

Firstly, it appears that you've conceded defeat on the original debate with respect to lengthening a hole, vis a vis tee extension, and not increasing the walk from green to tee.

Secondly, you are hallucinating. Where did I say that??  Have you been nipping at TEPs flask again?

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.

Creating a ridiculously dumb, extreme proposition is the only way you can hope to justify your seriously flawed position.  Unfortunately, the only thing you've done is to create a ridiculously, dumb, extreme proposition, the reality of which, only resides within your mind.

If using 80 yards is extreme, then you have yourself to blame. You used that number for comparisons sake, not me. I am merely following your lead.


That's right, I used 80 yards, 60 yards and 40 yards as an example on ONE hole.  You chose to expand the one hole example to ALL of the par 4's and par 5's on the golf course, an absolutely ridiculous, absurd position, that you, and only you created.

Why do you state that tee lengthening is a big, expensive project ?

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.

Please stay within the confines of reality.

For the umpteenth time, you're missing the point, it's not the participants/competitors, it's the powers that be that perceive the need to enhance the challenge.

I get that, and have.

Good, then I'll consider that acknowledgement as evidence that I'm making progress with you.

But my point remains, how often and for how many members is a course in reality not challenging versus what is perceived by those powers that be?

That's immaterial.
The frequency and quantity doesn't matter.
Perception becomes the reality.
And, when the powers that be perceive that a hole has lost its defenses to the advances of hi-tech, they seek to remedy that issue, and they remedy it by lengthening holes.

The proof is clear and irrefutable
Golf course after golf course, local clubs and clubs that host tournaments, have lengthened their holes for the reason/s I state.

Unless, you want to deny that courses have been lengthened over the last 10-20-30 years.

Pat

I don't understand your point.  In fact, I am wondering if there is a point to these past few pages.  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 are prudent, in the best interests of the membership or good for the game in general.  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. 

Ciao

[Andy Hughes]

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.

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

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.  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 and par 5.  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.

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.

[Andy Hughes]

But my point remains, how often and for how many members is a course in reality not challenging versus what is perceived by those powers that be?

That's immaterial.
The frequency and quantity doesn't matter.
Perception becomes the reality.
And, when the powers that be perceive that a hole has lost its defenses to the advances of hi-tech, they seek to remedy that issue, and they remedy it by lengthening holes.

The proof is clear and irrefutable
Golf course after golf course, local clubs and clubs that host tournaments, have lengthened their holes for the reason/s I state.

Unless, you want to deny that courses have been lengthened over the last 10-20-30 years.

Pat, I'm with Sean on this. What's your point? We all agree that lots of clubs have lengthened their courses over the years. That's not the issue, and that's not what I have argued.