[Patrick Hodgdon]

This quote on Mac's thread from Golf Course Architecture in America jumped out at me:

"Do not strive for length where you sacrifice character.  Your yardage is less valuable of the two considerations"

My "home" course of Interlachen just did this last fall by trying to add 3 new back tees to lengthen the course from 6900 to 7000.

One of them is an awful tee-box on the short 340 yard par-4 #2 which currently shares a split tee with #9 not 15 steps off of #8 green. The new back tee-box is literally 3 steps off the back of #8 green. Like right where someone might hit it long over the green on #8.

The 2nd new tee-box is on the 160-200-yard par 3 3rd hole. The new tee adds 20-25 yards to the hole and brings the back to 225-yards.

The 2rd new tee-box is on the 440 yard par-4 18th hole. This new tee adds about 25-30 yards to the hole. This is the only one of the 3 that in my opinion isn't forced or change the character of the hole. 18 is already one of the most challenging and best holes in the state and this tee box will solidify that. Into the predominant wind it will basically play as a 500-yard par 4 with a blind drive and an uphill approach to a green whose entire front half is false.  (This is the hole Michelle Wie made a 9 on in the Open)

The funniest part about the changes? Adding 3 ~25 yard tee boxes somehow gets you 100 more yards.

What I don't understand is the need for it. Interlachen will never hold another men's tournament there and they are sacrificing a lot of character for the scorecard to read 7,000 yards for a par-73 course.

The reason I'm told they made the changes is to keep there ranking high. Yet when I caddied for two raters this summer they loved the place and even said they thought the reason it's such a good course is the, you guessed it, really great short par-4's especially #2.

[Jason Topp]

Patrick:

Thanks for the thoughts.  I share your thoughts on the subject in general.  It seems like every course in the twin cities has added some length in the last couple of years with mixed impact on quality.  We have two new back tees at Oak Ridge.  One of them detracts from the hole significantly and I vocally opposed the other new tee but it has not opened yet so we will have to see how it plays.

As to Interlachen, I played it from the new back tees a couple of times last year and while I do not know the course that well, I had different reactions. 

2 did not bother me at all.  It still seemed like a good drive and pitch hole.  I saw little risk of being beaned from hole 8 because it would require someone to hit it over the green - pretty rare for a long par four.  I also like shared tees at a private club - it creates a spot for a quick conversation with friends you encounter.

3 is a bit excessive - although I aim for the middle of the green even from the short tee.

18 bothered me more than you.  It turns the hole into a slugging contest to a green that is nearly unpinnable because of the slopes.

Didn't they also lengthen 8?  I didn't remember that back tee from before but my memory is not the most trustworthy.

I can't imagine any of the new tees will help Interlachen in rankings.

[Mark Molyneux]

"In these days of long flying balls we are forced to insure the future values of the various holes against even more lively balls than those of the present." That's A.W. Tillinghast from his article on Building Elasticity which appeared in Golf Illustrated in May, 1919.

The reality is that many Golden Age courses were brilliantly designed for a game that doesn't exist anymore. Still, many golf holes from the Golden Age (for a variety of reasons) can hold up to 460cc titanium drivers and hot golf balls. The best refinements to classic golf courses should consider the playability of every hole before changing any hole. The USGA and PGA have their responsibilities to enforce some reasonable limitations on equipment but the outstanding architect needs to build in elasticity so the courses can evolve along with the game.

Tillinghast's admonition is well taken, "We must endeavor to make our modern courses as elastic as possible and when we are forced to lengthen out, it is far more economical to build new teeing grounds and hazards than to construct new putting greens." Whenever I'm standing on a tee at an AWT course, I turn around on the tee just to see if there's still some stretch left.

[Matt_Ward]

Patrick, et al:

Can someone explain to me what the big deal of Interlached is all about -- beyond the history / tradition argument one hears again and again.

To me Interlachen is the Baltusrol of Minnesota. Plenty of hype but from a strict architectural side of things it's far from compelling in my mind.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Patrick:

Thanks for the thoughts.  I share your thoughts on the subject in general.  It seems like every course in the twin cities has added some length in the last couple of years with mixed impact on quality.  We have two new back tees at Oak Ridge.  One of them detracts from the hole significantly and I vocally opposed the other new tee but it has not opened yet so we will have to see how it plays.

As to Interlachen, I played it from the new back tees a couple of times last year and while I do not know the course that well, I had different reactions.  

2 did not bother me at all.  It still seemed like a good drive and pitch hole.  I saw little risk of being beaned from hole 8 because it would require someone to hit it over the green - pretty rare for a long par four.  I also like shared tees at a private club - it creates a spot for a quick conversation with friends you encounter.

3 is a bit excessive - although I aim for the middle of the green even from the short tee.

18 bothered me more than you.  It turns the hole into a slugging contest to a green that is nearly unpinnable because of the slopes.

Didn't they also lengthen 8?  I didn't remember that back tee from before but my memory is not the most trustworthy.

I can't imagine any of the new tees will help Interlachen in rankings.

Jason-

Wow you must have played them late in the season as they were just putting them in October when I left for FL.

You are correct that the new box on #2 probably won't be hit much at all. And with only 3-5 groups all day playing that tee the likelihood of someone getting hit is minuscule. It just looks out of place to me especially with the split tee-box being such a nice feature as you said.

The reason I don't like #3's new tee is it makes it the exact same club as the 225 yard 17. It was great at 160-180 between the 150-180 #5 and the 170-190 #13.

#18 is indeed now a slugfest. It's a championship par-4. Personally I think the black tees probably should be where they were before at 440 and only should be dragged back on some days. But I guess you know what you're getting playing the blacks. The reason it didn't bother me is because it wasn't really changing the character of the hole. For the long hitters it's now driver and 4-iron or so. Which for most of the older members is how it plays from the white member tees.

They lengthened #8 a few years ago and then moved the box slightly back again 2 years ago before the Women's Open IIRC. It's an even better hole now especially with the way Silva brought the bunkers back in to pinch the fairway. It forces me to either absolutely crush a drive on a very fine line or just hit 3-wood out to the right and have a long approach. One of the best holes out there imo.

Matt - As much as I love Interlachen it probably is a bit overrated because of both the tradition and that most say it's the best course in MN. (And with MN having the most golfers per capita word travels far and wide that it's the best.) I've had a number of people tell me they think Fazio's Springhill is the better golf course but unfortunately I've yet to play it so I can't compare. Honestly though you could also make a strong case imo that Minneapolis Golf Club is damn close to the being as good a course as ICC but lacks in the tradition.

That being said Interlachen is a wonderful old Ross with some fantastic green complexes that have lots of movement. The two raters I spoke of previously both agreed that it has one of the best sets of short par-4's (#2,#6,#7,#10,#16) that are still both fun to play and hold up against par pretty well even if they are all driver/3-wood and wedge. I've thought for a while that they need to knock down 2, #1 and #11 (and maybe 3 - #9) of their 5 par-5's into par 4's and make it a par 71 (or 70). #1 was originally a par-4 on Ross' design until RTJ moved the green back 40 yards and turned it into a par-5. It's not a bad par-5 but if you moved the tee-box up just 40 yards it would be a great opening par-4. #11 is the controversial hole that they changed to a par-4 one summer but didn't take down the trees at the corner of the dogleg like they needed to. It's a par 4.5 as it stands depending on whether your drive gets through the trees or not. There's a small but strong contingent of members that are pushing for it to be changed and the trees taken down. If so it could turn into one of the best par-4's in the state.

Matt have you played it since Silva re-did the bunkers in '07? If not they have GREATLY added to the architecture of the course. Likewise the tree-removal they did also was well done and they could even take out 500+ more I'd say.

In all I still think Interlachen is a top 100 course but it probably falls in the 85+ range and not the 60-70 range it's in now. I'd be curious to hear others thoughts.

[Pat Burke]

Boneheaded golf pro here.  I have a question.
What percentage of the golfing population is experiencing the obsolescence of these courses?
I consider myself a little above avg golfer, and fly the ball about 270.  I play with my students pretty
regularly, and do not have one non-professional who has left the course in his rear view mirror.
The ball goes too far,...for the best players.  But, does it really go too far for the folks who will
determine if these golf courses survive or fail.?
I've said this before, if golden age courses are not good enough for a major, let them play the behemoths, and leave the gems to everybody else who is paying the freight.

I still love playing Mountain Ridge, Hollywood, CPC.  Yes, at 47 even, I hit it in spots that surprise me, but still love the experiences on those courses.  Most (not all) of the best players love golden age courses, and relish playing them at times. 
Should the USGA have done better? YES!  But the average still struggles, even with space age equipment.  Wiser minds need to let
tournament golfers do what they do, while they preserve the qualities we have grown to love about the game for the real gofers out there.

[Mac Plumart]

Pat...I am on-board with your comments 100%! 

"if golden age courses are not good enough for a major, let them play the behemoths, and leave the gems to everybody else"

Absolutely!!

[Jeff Shelman]

As Jason said, there is certainly a race to 7,000 going on in the Twin Cities with clubs building all kinds of new tees. Some are good moves. Others are ridiculous.

Minneapolis has done it. Interlachen. Golden Valley opened some new tees last year. And then clubs like North Oaks, Somerset, Mendakota, Minnesota Valley and Oak Ridge adding tees.

I get that people want to have a challenging course and there's a lot of ego in it, but I think fun sometimes gets lost. I play golf to have a good time. I certainly want to be challenged and I get the ball around reasonably well, but I am growing tired of really, really difficult holes where the goal is to pound two perfect shots to have a chance to hit a green in regulation.

I haven't played 18 at Interlachen since the changes, but it doesn't seem like a ton of fun to pound a driver as hard as you can, try to find the ball and then have to play a super long shot into a green that is so elevated you can't see the surface. And if you are a centimeter beyond hole high, you'll be lucky to three putt.

What's wrong with fun and charm and all that stuff?

[Matt_Ward]

Patrick Hodgdon:

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I have not been back to Interlachen for quite some time -- played it last the same year Rich Beem won the PGA. I don't see Interlachen as a top 100 course from the ones I have personally played. That's not to say it's not a good golf course but if someone were to beam (using the Star Trek phrase) and land it in the greater NYC area it would hardly be noticed.

Read the last line Doak pens in CG about the course.

Now, I have not played the course since the Silva work that you mentioned.

But remember this other new courses -- see the Jeff B additions -- have changed the golf landscape in Minnesota as well.

Interlachen gets the Baltusrol plug for all the "tradition" and "history" elements. If you and others really see Interlachen as a top 100 course in 2010 I have to wonder how deep you own personal golf portfolio of courses played really is. No disrespect meant / intended.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Patrick Hodgdon:

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I have not been back to Interlachen for quite some time -- played it last the same year Rich Beem won the PGA. I don't see Interlachen as a top 100 course from the ones I have personally played. That's not to say it's not a good golf course but if someone were to beam (using the Star Trek phrase) and land it in the greater NYC area it would hardly be noticed.

Read the last line Doak pens in CG about the course.

Now, I have not played the course since the Silva work that you mentioned.

But remember this other new courses -- see the Jeff B additions -- have changed the golf landscape in Minnesota as well.

Interlachen gets the Baltusrol plug for all the "tradition" and "history" elements. If you and others really see Interlachen as a top 100 course in 2010 I have to wonder how deep you own personal golf portfolio of courses played really is. No disrespect meant / intended.

Matt-

If you get the chance play it again. The new bunkering really brings out the best in the course architecturally. I think you would enjoy it. Maybe still not top 100 in your mind but MUCH better than what you saw in 2002.

I am certainly no where near as traveled a golfer as you or a lot of people on this site are. Of courses that are considered top 100 that I've played Interlachen, Hazeltine, Calusa Pines, Pasatiempo, and Seminole. I'm not a fan of Hazeltine at all and I would consider Interlachen to be ever so slightly behind Pasatiempo and Calusa Pines and obviously behind Seminole.

Perhaps it doesn't belong on the U.S top 100 and with all the new great courses coming along it will get pushed out. I would imagine it will always have a place at the very least on the Golf Week top 100 classic courses though.

The point of course is that they don't need to add length to it. If they want to call it a championship course they should simply cut down 2 or 3 of the 5 par 5's.

[Dan Kelly]

I get that people want to have a challenging course and there's a lot of ego in it, but I think fun sometimes gets lost. I play golf to have a good time. I certainly want to be challenged and I get the ball around reasonably well, but I am growing tired of really, really difficult holes where the goal is to pound two perfect shots to have a chance to hit a green in regulation.

I haven't played 18 at Interlachen since the changes, but it doesn't seem like a ton of fun to pound a driver as hard as you can, try to find the ball and then have to play a super long shot into a green that is so elevated you can't see the surface. And if you are a centimeter beyond hole high, you'll be lucky to three putt.

What's wrong with fun and charm and all that stuff?

Hear, hear.

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick Hodgdon:

Interlachen gets the Baltusrol plug for all the "tradition" and "history" elements. If you and others really see Interlachen as a top 100 course in 2010 I have to wonder how deep you own personal golf portfolio of courses played really is. No disrespect meant / intended.

Then what was intended, Matt? We've had this discussion before -- you don't think much of Interlachen, and those who do probably haven't played enough courses. I don't see how that opinion -- expressed again -- is relevant to the subject Patrick brought up. He thinks adding length detracts from the character of the course. So do I. Agree or disagree?

[Dan Kelly]

If you and others really see Interlachen as a top 100 course in 2010 I have to wonder how deep you own personal golf portfolio of courses played really is. No disrespect meant / intended.

In other words: "If you don't agree with me, you're not qualified to have an opinion."

No disrespect meant/intended? Give us a break. Disrespect (along with self-regard) is the essence of that statement.

Enough, Matt. Enough. Please.

(BTW: I have no idea where Interlachen would "rank," because (a) I've never played it, and (b) I think the whole ranking thing is silly. And I thiink, furthermore, that I'm qualified to have that opinion, among others.)

[Adam_Messix]

Patrick--

Have they ever considered restoring the 17th hole to the length they played it in the 1930 U. S. Open?  It was something like 255 yards I think.  Admittedly, I don't think the hole needs it, but there is place where the length wouldn't seem ridiculous, it has historic merit, and there's plenty of room behind the current tee. 

The 18th hole at 450 yards will be a killer.  That green has the most severe false front/slope this side of #11 at the Country Club of Charleston/#9 at Cassique. 

Even though Interlachen will most likely never host another men's event, it's still a wonderful course.

[Dan Kelly]

Patrick--

Have they ever considered restoring the 17th hole to the length they played it in the 1930 U. S. Open?  It was something like 255 yards I think.  Admittedly, I don't think the hole needs it, but there is place where the length wouldn't seem ridiculous, it has historic merit, and there's plenty of room behind the current tee. 

Agree completely.

I think it played at 269 yards for the 1930 Open. It would be a really cool hole at that length, I think.

I can easily see a tournament where you'd play it one day from 269 and the next from 175.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I still love playing Mountain Ridge, Hollywood, CPC. 

Pat, I do too, but, in fairness, Mountain Ridge and Hollywood have been lengthened considerably from their original lengths.

Yes, at 47 even, I hit it in spots that surprise me, but still love the experiences on those courses. 
Most (not all) of the best players love golden age courses, and relish playing them at times.
 
Should the USGA have done better? YES!  But the average still struggles, even with space age equipment. 
Wiser minds need to let tournament golfers do what they do, while they preserve the qualities we have grown to love about the game for the real gofers out there.

Remember, it's not the USGA, but, the local clubs that add the length.

I think the objection many offer is that in the past, lengthening to offset distance improvements was a gradual process, but, with leap frog advancements in distance, courses had to respond in kind.

It's a delicate area.

Take # 8 at NLGA, the "Bottle" hole where the centerline bunkers are "THE" critical feature for the drive.
Do you let that bunker complex become more and more obsolete to a broader spectrum of golfer, or, do you add length as a countermeasure to preserve the function of the feature ?

What's the "threshold" for deciding to add distance ?

[Pat Burke]

I still love playing Mountain Ridge, Hollywood, CPC. 

Pat, I do too, but, in fairness, Mountain Ridge and Hollywood have been lengthened considerably from their original lengths.

Yes, at 47 even, I hit it in spots that surprise me, but still love the experiences on those courses. 
Most (not all) of the best players love golden age courses, and relish playing them at times.
 
Should the USGA have done better? YES!  But the average still struggles, even with space age equipment. 
Wiser minds need to let tournament golfers do what they do, while they preserve the qualities we have grown to love about the game for the real gofers out there.

Remember, it's not the USGA, but, the local clubs that add the length.

I think the objection many offer is that in the past, lengthening to offset distance improvements was a gradual process, but, with leap frog advancements in distance, courses had to respond in kind.

It's a delicate area.

Take # 8 at NLGA, the "Bottle" hole where the centerline bunkers are "THE" critical feature for the drive.
Do you let that bunker complex become more and more obsolete to a broader spectrum of golfer, or, do you add length as a countermeasure to preserve the function of the feature ?

What's the "threshold" for deciding to add distance ?

Agreed on Mountain Ridge and Hollywood lengthening, but lengthened without altering the true character of the courses.  Mountain Ridge tried to really stay with their Ross Heritage.
My point is that too many courses are destroying their history to add length for a very limited number of golfers who play, and support the course.  Yes, tour pros and the best young players are longer , but my experiences in pro ams and teaching are that most golfers should be playing tees that are shorter, and that very, very few of the day in day out golfers are making the golden age courses obsolete.
A place like Riviera is absolutely destroying itself for a shot at a US Open, (or God forbid rankings), when the golf course is enough for 98%+ of all golfers who play there.
I don't believe Tiger hurt golf, he hurt the TOUR.  I do believe that using TOUR players as the yardstick for responding to equipment or architecture guidelines, isn't working.  Courses are too hard for most, and the new equipment isn't radically changing the average golfers abilities.  Even as a former player, I could really give a crap if Phil flies the lake on 18 in Scottsdale.  I have maybe 1 non professional that could pull that off from the white tees, so that shot is plenty scary for them

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Patrick--

Have they ever considered restoring the 17th hole to the length they played it in the 1930 U. S. Open?  It was something like 255 yards I think.  Admittedly, I don't think the hole needs it, but there is place where the length wouldn't seem ridiculous, it has historic merit, and there's plenty of room behind the current tee. 

The 18th hole at 450 yards will be a killer.  That green has the most severe false front/slope this side of #11 at the Country Club of Charleston/#9 at Cassique. 

Even though Interlachen will most likely never host another men's event, it's still a wonderful course.

Adam-

In 12 years of looping there I never heard the suggestion of extended 17 back. I agree there is room for it if desired. It's a very tough hole at 225 yards from the tips currently but obviously that's what Willie Kidd intended when he designed it back in 1928 at 260+ yards. (Kidd took out Ross' 11th hole a par 3 behind 10 and 18, and split the par 4 16 into today's par 4 and added the 17th par 3. JC Jones currently has my ICC History book but I believe the current 17 green stayed the same.) In 1930 the hole played 261 yards and was the longest par 3 in US Open history until 2002 at Bethpage if I recall correctly. Jones missed the green and did no better than bogey. (This was also the site of the somewhat infamous rules deceision by Walker Bush that allowed Jones a very generous drop in his final round) I also think he hit driver every round too. It would have made much more sense to (re)lengthen 17 as opposed to lengthening 3.

18 is indeed a beast now and after the extra 20 yards. In the ladies club championship this past summer the leader who I was caddying for lead the two other ladies by 4 strokes each and carded a 9 to lose by 1 after 54 holes. It was a stomach punch loss but that's the beauty and the beast of such a great finishing hole.

[Matt Schmidt]

I'm new here, and to serious review of golf course architecture (but not new to golf).  I'm curious why it matters if tees are added behind the tees people normally play?  It seems to me that the course has not really changed for 98% of players if all that was done was stretch the tips back further.  Can't all but those insistent on hitting from the tips still enjoy the same course?

I have a similar question regarding criticisms of bunkers added further on down the fairway to discourage the bombers from freely bombing.  Bunkers that 98% of the people cannot reach seem to be no more than visual distractions (at worst) to them and do not seriously affect the way they play and enjoy the course (or at least they shouldn't).

I do agree that some of the changes at many courses seem unnecessary.  But absent changing green locations/character and the like, it seems that most changes made to Tiger-proof a course, or render it USGA championship worthy, have little affect on the course for most people.

[I haven't played Interlachen, my comments are about these types of changes in general.]

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Patrick--

Have they ever considered restoring the 17th hole to the length they played it in the 1930 U. S. Open?  It was something like 255 yards I think.  Admittedly, I don't think the hole needs it, but there is place where the length wouldn't seem ridiculous, it has historic merit, and there's plenty of room behind the current tee. 

The 18th hole at 450 yards will be a killer.  That green has the most severe false front/slope this side of #11 at the Country Club of Charleston/#9 at Cassique. 

Even though Interlachen will most likely never host another men's event, it's still a wonderful course.

Speaking of 17 at ICC... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1072010/6/index.htm

[Matthew Sander]

Is there any indication that White Bear Yacht Club may go down this path?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()