[Adam_F_Collins]

I just wonder how much power should dominate things in golf course design. I was listening to an interview with Fuzzy Zoeller at the Masters and he was talking about how the course 'used to be a lot more fun' and that 'the course is just too long for us older fellas now.'

I've played a lot of golf on a 5500 yard par 68.

I've lost a lot of money to men over 50 on that golf course.

A lot of 'the young guys' bitch about the course being too short, but you know what? When the Provincial Amateur was played there, it wasn't just the young guys at the top of the leader board, and when they played the Mid Am there, there was no one under par. Not only that, but most people can still hit driver on 9-11 of the holes.

I know power and distance is important, but should a golfer be REQUIRED to be able to hit a 300+ yard drive to be able to compete?

Is there a length that balances this to a decent middle ground? I'm not suggesting that it's in the 5500 yard range, but couldn't it be in the 6800 range? How long is appropriate for testing golf greatness?

I feel like if a golf course is so long that it takes out most people over 50, then it's moving away from the golf that I love.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Adam,
The longest careers in any sport are those of golfers.

[John Moore II]

Well, Kenny Perry is 48 and is leading the Masters. Rocco was 45ish last year at the US Open. Greg Norman was over 50 and led the  British last year. I could go on. Yes, Perry is a long driver of the ball, but I don't think its required that you hit 300+ yard drives to compete, you just have to hit consistently good shots. I mean, we don't see Bubba or JB winning much do we?

[Ronald Montesano]

Moderately-good to great golf course design eliminates the one-dimensional player (Bubba and JB) from consideration.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam -

I was thinking just today that golf, unique amongst all sports, actually aims at ameliorating physical differences instead of accentuating them.  It aims at levelling the playing field as much as possible, and it always has -- the aim seems built into golf's DNA, as it were.  The fact (a startling one) that a 300 yard drive counts for exactly as much and exactly as little as a two inch putt; the long-standing and in some quarters still-revered practice of match-play, that in essence is purposely designed only to give the lesser golfer a chance of beating the better one; the much-beloved (and again unique) handicap system, in place solely to ensure the fairest and closest fight possible.  All of this is embedded into the very spirit of the game. So it seems that it just has to (or at least should) have a significant, profound, effect on golf course architecture and the philosophy/ethos of golf design. Why it doesn't always, I'm not sure. 

Plus, I'm not a good golfer, but I’ve played a few times with the 8 handicappers who insisted on playing from the back tees. Somehow, maybe it's just a coincidence, but they were never able to break 90. I guess they all happened to have bad days that day...   

Peter

[mike_beene]

There are a number of people in their 50's longer than Furyk,Verplank,etc.

[Rob Rigg]

I don't think golf is a "young man's game" - certainly not on Tour.

Look at the leaderboard - most of the guys are north of 30 and several are north of 40.

It's good for the game to have people like AK, Villegas, McIlroy, etc. around for young golfers to look up to.

Fuzzy whining about the course is comical - at 60 whatever, you're not supposed to be winning major tournaments - nor were you ever supposed to. Without improved technology, the "seniors" competing at Augusta would probably be farther from making the cut, not closer.

[John Moore II]

I don't think golf is a "young man's game" - certainly not on Tour.

Look at the leaderboard - most of the guys are north of 30 and several are north of 40.

It's good for the game to have people like AK, Villegas, McIlroy, etc. around for young golfers to look up to.

Fuzzy whining about the course is comical - at 60 whatever, you're not supposed to be winning major tournaments - nor were you ever supposed to. Without improved technology, the "seniors" competing at Augusta would probably be farther from making the cut, not closer.

Well....Jack finished T-5 in 1998 at age 58. So, sometimes the old folks get on the top of the page.

[Ronald Montesano]

This is so insanely off-topic that I feel unclean, but here goes.  In 1980, the last-place finisher at The Masters shot 89-65...a 24-stroke improvement.  He also would have won the low second round crystal for his score.  How amazing is that, architecturally speaking?  I have no idea which Clarke this was.  He did not play in 1979 nor in 1981.

[David_Tepper]

The notion that a player over 50 could or should be expected to be competitive in a major professional golf championship is a non-starter.  In the words of Jack Nicklaus, Augusta National (as it plays for the Masters) has always been "a young man's course."   

The fact that Kenny Perry (age 49) and Angel Cabrera (age 40), neither of whom are fitness/workout freaks, are in the final group on Masters Sunday is a tremendous credit to the skills and abilities.

As noted earlier on this thread, golf is just about the only sport where a player can compete at the highest levels will into his or here 40's.

 

[Ronald Montesano]

What women, other than Juli Inkster and the Great Gundy, compete well into their 40s?  Laura Davies might be a third, but it's nowhere near the number of dudes that pull it off.

[John Moore II]

I think, in truth, this is a very architecturally relevent topic. Yardage has a little less to do with architectural quality and scoring than some tend to give credit.

A course that is 8200 yards long with flat fairways, few bunkers, and flat greens will produce low scores most all the time.

A course with rippled fairways, good coutours in the greens, and strategically placed bunkers can challenge players even if its only 5500 yards.

I once had my lunch handed to me at Lake Worth Municipal, a course that was only 6100 yards long. I also once shot 42-32 on a course that was 7400 yards long and won the tournament.

Yardage is not the end all of course difficulty. With proper design, a short course can be made to test even the best of players.

What women, other than Juli Inkster and the Great Gundy, compete well into their 40s?  Laura Davies might be a third, but it's nowhere near the number of dudes that pull it off.

But I would say, in the least-sexist sounding way possible, that the ladies are more affected by families than the men are. I should also say that many more simply get to a certain point and quit, for the purpose of raising a family in the way that they feel best (i.e. not being on the road 30 weeks a year). Juli Inkster played really well for several years when she was young, kind of disappeared for years and then came back after her children were older.

[Tom_Doak]

John K Moore:  I know what you were trying to say above, but you should have qualified it.  The length of a course does not have a profound effect on the scoring of Tour-quality players, but it still has an ENORMOUS effect on the scoring of 10-handicaps and above, women, and indeed most of the rest of the world.  I can still break 80 on a 6000-yard course in the UK, but rarely get there from 6500 yards in the USA.

The reason length doesn't matter to the Tour pros is that you just can't make a course play long enough for them.  If you had a bunch of holes where they had to hit 2-irons or 4-woods into greens, they wouldn't score that well either ... except for the fact those holes would all be par-5's and they would be trying to get home in two.  As Pete Dye told me many years ago, even the pros are erratic with a 2-iron in their hands, because they're just not used to hitting one that often.  (Which is why those par-5's at Augusta were always so exciting to watch.)

[John Moore II]

Tom--Funny you should say I needed a qualifier; I was trying to argue for shorter courses, at least that was the intent, not sure what the result was though. 

Either way, I think people are too overcome with total distance on a course. Like I said, I think some really good and really interesting courses could be made to challenge even the best of players and be in the 6000 yard range.

The Lake Worth experience is, to me, very telling. I played there one day with another pro and we both really felt like we played well. I think I shot 85 and he shot 86. This is on a 6000 yard course. They had a par 4 that was playing in the range of 450; I hit driver-3wood and was like 25 yards short of the green, I hit them both really good. I later hit driver-PW to a 495 yard par 5, wedge shot went about 15 yards long of the green. Very next hole I had to nuke a 5 iron to a 120 yard par 3. Yes, the wind was howling. But truth be told, we each felt like we'd played somewhat good golf and got our faces beat off.

I think the trouble with yardage is that it has become, in the mind of the public, the determining factor in whether or not a course is 'good' or 'difficult.' And in reality, its not. Very good, architecturally sound golf courses can be designed in the 'short' range and still be difficult. Oh, Tobacco Road is another that can really lay the lumber to you if you are not careful; 6500 yards.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

What is more concerning is the problem of truly young golfers being introduced to the game.  I'm talking juniors here.

The longer the golf course, the higher the cost.  The greater barriers to entry.  ESPN had a spot this morning about where the next 'Tiger' was going to come from.  That being a euphemism of course for the next Black/African American player.  They suggested Tiger should be doing more. 

In reality, the industry has gotten off track with 7500 yard courses that cost a fortune to build.  How much more could have been done in my home town had the $21 million spent on Chambers Bay been used for lower profile projects? 

We need to get to a model of either purpose built courses for the PGA or a return to shorter ball and next year V grooves.  As well as a model of more user friendly golf courses for those of us addicted to the game who can still play and enjoy courses of 4900-6500 yards.  That means playable and enjoyable for juniors/women and men.  They should be walkable/affordable and should be easily played in 4:15 hours. 

Tom D. I'll give you two a side on a $2 dollar nassau, winner buys.  You pick the tees.  Now that's golf amongst pals!

[JESII]

It's not youth that provides the young guys an advantage, it's the perception that youth provides an advantage that provides the advantage...the patience and discipline a 45 year old should have should be way more valuable than an extra 25 yards.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()