[Jeff_Brauer]

In the “shorter courses are more popular” thread, I took some shots for perhaps seeing the light too late.  Perhaps, but I think all Golf Course Architecture is ongoing evaluation, no?

For the record, I have two 7600 yard courses (one specifically for collegiate competitions) and two 7400 yard courses in my portfolio.  I also had a run where three projects in a row measured out to just over 7200 yards, but I think many of the markers were measured right off the back of the back tee, rather than the center of the back tee, to attain that “magic number.”  Of course, my major evolution in thinking hasn’t been to necessarily shorten the back tees too much, but to downsize the back tee to as small as 15 x 15 feet, and make sure I am not irrigating much in between the tee and fairway to keep costs down.

So, the question is, “How long is long enough for today’s typical back tee yardage?” 

I know the answer must assume some things – not a mountain course, average wind (presumably a spanking wind would shorten the length requirements somewhat) and a design for top ams, and not Tour Pros who won’t show up.  And lastly, no nostalgic hope that the USGA will roll the ball back.

Frankly, I have not heard any complaints that the 7200 yard courses are too short, save a few suggestions to lengthen three easily lengthened holes at the Quarry for specific reasons (8, 15, 16 and possibly 2 since it hasn’t proven reachable by many)   And oddly, that is the hardest course I have designed (other than maybe Colbert Hills) whereas some of the other public courses are easier, and for some reason, not much talk is devoted to length)

On my two 7400 yard courses, I explained to the client that if 7600 was good for Tour Pros (and half aren’t even competitive at that length) then a course within 3% of that (i.e. – 228 yards, or 7372 approx) should be saleable to the few top ams who show up.  But, somehow, owners don’t buy into 5% less than top length, which would put the back tee length to 7220 or so, but the courses got measured up to 7400 for marketing.  For courses like Sand Creek, which holds a lot of Kansas section events, they never play it all the way back anyway, even for the best players in the state. 

Based on my experience, approx. 7220 is probably the right number to allow the long hitting ams to use their length and have reasonable length shots into the greens.

Any thoughts?

[Dan Herrmann]

6700 works for me!

[John Moore II]

Jeff-this is a multi-faceted question. And all depends on target market. If the client intends to host Tour events, Majors, or major Amateur events, then the course literally can't be too long, 7600, 8000 whatever, when guys hit wedge or 9 iron into 500 yard holes, a course just simply can't be too long.

Now, for the normal amateur market, 6700 yards is more than sufficient. I noted that in this years Best-in-State rankings from Golf Magazine, the new #9 course in North Carolina was a 6700 yard course in the mountains. It just all depends on how they want to market themselves; and how they want to maintain the course.

If they want wall to wall irrigated, maintained grass, might have to go shorter to keep the budget in line. However, if they want to go with island fairways and waste areas, etc., like Tobacco Road (though I do think they maintain the waste areas too much) or Pine Valley, then length is less of an issue because maintenance can be controlled by not having as much well maintained, irrigated space.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan and John,

As I have posted before, over 7000 works for about 3% of golfers, 6700 or so works for about 16% of golfers.  6300 works for about 57% of all golfers.  5500 works for about 19% of golfers, and <4500 works for about 4-5% of golfers.

To amplify the question, it it worth building every course with tees for those 3%?  Some surveys show that while golfers prefer to play at perhaps 63-6700 yards, they somehow feel the course is inferior if there are not tees over 7000 yards.

However, the old model from the 70's of 7000-6800-6400-5000 doesn't really fit anyone any more.  7000 seems too short for the best players, while the 6800 and 6400 tees suit many.  However, I find seniors start to avoid courses if there is not one tee below 6000 yards (while my dad never would play under that magic number, men today seem to accept their limitations a bit more) and I have found that we still largely ignore the design for women and make the courses almost unbearable for them. I have played three courses this year where the forward tees were nearly 6000 yards long themselves!

Or, do we do like John suggests and build, say 7200, but try other ways to reduce the maintained acreage?  However, as John's post even hints, we just can't seem to get away from the idea that a tour event juuuuuuust miiiiiight show up one day, such as the days snowballs freeze in hell!  I can't count the number of discussions I have had over the years driven by the idea of how tour pros play.  We just can't seem to ditch that thought, even though how they play should affect design of most courses as much as the price of eggs in China.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think you need the flexibility for everything and some will want long. You are totally right when you say at 7600 yards half the pros cant compete. There is a lot of difference between 7200 yards and 7600 yards and very few golfers have ever played 7600 yards. That aside I think you probably need the total back tees to match up to around that number, you can set up a course much shorter to take account of conditions, maybe even just leave the space for the tees. Also, I am not sure saying a course is 7600 yards is actually a great marketing trick, I think it might be better to keep the 7600 more of a secret. I think a modern golf course probably needs the '7' in front, so somwhere between those numbers, but there are plenty of very enjoyable courses from 4800 up.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I suppose it depends upon the equipment you are playing with. If pre 1980, 5,800/6,200 yards;  if Pre 1990 6,200/6,500, if after 2000, hell its hard to say as I have started to look at Hickory to get more fun out of the game. So in truth it does not matter anymore.

Do, tell me the choice of your equipment does not make a difference.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adrian,

I know Colbert Hills reports that the 7600 scares a lot of golfers off but once they find they can play at 6300 or so and its reasonable, they like the course.  Also, the developer who wanted 7600 later backed off the idea of marketing it as the longest course in the area, but still wanted that length to max out developed frontage.  So, I agree high slope ratings and length are not great marketing tools.  Perhaps leaving a small knob behind the back tees is enough to convince owners that there is room to lengthen later, if necessary, is the best solution, just like the old days!

[John Moore II]

The only reason I can see for going over 7000 is if you are fairly certain you can get a major event. Sebonack, the 2010 Course from this week, and others like that where it is most assured that you will host an event can go back the big yardage. But other than that, a shorter yardage will work fine. If someone insists on a long yardage, just make some silly back tees here and there, but make them where knuckleheads can't get to them.

[D_Malley]

My course is 5800 from the farthest back tee and it has been one of the most popular public courses in the area for many years.  i look at the shorter yardage as a positive which makes golf much more enjoyable for many of our customers.  It is very unfortunate that no one will ever build a course like this in the future.

[RJ_Daley]

I think the answer is more in the design of the course at 6700-7000 at par 72 or 73 for >8-10 handicaps.  Then you don't have to have a way back tee from 7000 if a concession to pay 71-70 for those that play from 7000 in a better or higher flighted tournament.

Thus, one needs one or two monster par 3s of about 245 yards at a back tee location, with a 190-210 for normal up players, or a couple of par 5s at 480-510 that have the proper design of and around greens to be good holes for a long approach for the better par 4 player or heroic shot for the par 5 player, and an interesting 3rd shot for the weaker players.  So, make up for the yardage concession like the USGA usually does, with a design that slides par depending on the nature of the competition.  It will put more creativity in the design of a few holes to be able to slide on the par for both sets of skillsets.

[Sean_A]

For the very good to best amateurs, somewhere in the 6900-7100 works depending on the particulars of the area if everything else is equal.  I would also look to add that last 2 or 300 hundred yards with as few as holes as possible with a few really huge differences in tees.  Keeping to the two hundred yard range this type of minor championship course should likely have the next set at 6400-6600 and the next at 5900-6100.  I am guesiing even at 6100 yards this is a fairly tough course with the rating matching the par.  

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Shiv and Sean,

Good answers, IMHO.  As I said, a few of my courses got measured at the suspicious 7201 to 7205 range, which I figured was because the pro figured going up would be good marketing.  If I ever get the chance, I think I will insist that the course be less than rather than more than 7200 yards for marketing purposes.

Even my son and his college team golfers are fine at 7100 something, even though they could probably play at 7300 yards if they had to.  Its just that they don't like to.  They like reasonable (to them, short irons by my game) irons into the green.  Sometimes, its only the gca buffs who seem to think that the golf course ought to somehow test their manhood rather than just be fun.

Sean,

Given how few players would want to play over 7100 something, I like your idea of just a few extra and well hidden tees to gain that length.  Certainly should be a lot cheaper than making all holes a bit longer than they need to be, and could be reserved for the par 5 holes or other holes where adding signfigant yardage would really change the way they play rather than just put a club longer in their hands on every hole.

[Sean_A]

Sean, I think that a course tipping out at 6900 is too short for most low handicap amateurs.  You can certainly hold tournaments at that distance, and you can certainly have nice tournaments at that distance and for that matter, even shorter distances.  

But that shouldn't be the maxed-out length, IMO.  At 6900, the par 4s would average about 400.  For a guy who hits it 270, that leaves 130 on average.  That's too short and it'll turn into a wedgefest for the longer hitters.  Conversely, at 7150, you'd average 155 for approaches for a 270 hitter, so you'll still have some wedges, but also some mid and long irons for these guys to hit to balance it out.

Finally:  Jeff, the sure way to lose the long hitters is to make it so short they won't hit driver off the tee.   You have to let them hit the driver from the back tees.  If driver on a par 4 is an idiot play more than two or three times a round, that's not good.  The most common strategy I see off the tee from longer hitters is that if they can get a PW or less in their hands with a hybrid off the tee, they'll almost always choose that and hit the hybrid.  The decision needs to be "do I hit driver to get the wedge in my hands or do I hit the hybrid and use a mid iron in".  When a course gets a rep for being a hybrid/wedge fest, that's not good. 

Shiv

I meant 6900-7100 would be the range on most days with the capability of going back to 7100.  I could easily see 6900 being a handful for the very good ams if the weather doesn't cooperate, there is an over-zealous setup or if the wind gets up.  I know my course goes back to only 6950 and it tests some damn good ams every year.  They don't tear it up, but there are several holes where driver is a dangerous play if the wind isn't an issue - many would choose to lay-up. 

Ciao 

[Sean Leary]

Depends on where it is and how long it plays.

I played one course this weekend at 7400 and one at 6650 with two GCAers. For each of us, the 6600 played longer....Different climate and different firmness levels made all the difference.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Answer this before I reply to your initial question -- what purpose is the course serving and who is the prime clietele ?

If there's no desire to host a big time outside event then going to a max of 7,000 yards is more than sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases.

No doubt if one builds in higher elevations you need to adjust that but if the bulk of people playing is members and their guests or in the case of a public facility then nothing more than 6,800 yards is just fine.

One other thing -- if you go shorter then the overall severity of the greens can be ramped up accordingly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I think I did in the suppositions, but I presumed the course would want some appeal to the top amateur players, but not tour pros.  As with others, I am amazed that you seemingly HAVE to mention a big time event!  That rarely figures into my thinking, other than at Colbert Hills.  I am also wondering why your next line of thought is to toughen up greens on a shorter course?  Again, you seem to be presuming that a course ought to somehow appeal to the best players in your thought process almost automatically, which doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

I also wondered how popular a course with a max yardage of 6800 might be.  While over 80% will play from 63-6800 yards, some like the idea that the other tees are back there and it affects their opinion of the course.  But, as Shivas says, if we are catering to all golfers, including the best am (who want to hit driver off most tees)  However, I do know there are many, many 6800 yard courses out there that work very well for their members.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

If you want to test top amateur players then you need to be clearly in excess of 7,000 yards -- unless the course is extremely narrow with H20 located in all the key spots and including a range of forced carries and the like.

Jeff, as I am sure you are aware -- the mega distances that young players can hit the ball is often underrated by a great many people. 300+ is the norm for the really top tier and quite a few of those who do it regularly can play the total game.

Most courses that are long -- are simply that just long. That alone will not corral such players.

Jeff, your thread asked "what is a good back tee yardage now?" The only people who should play the back tee at most courses are those with a single digit handicap and likely only those that are five or better.

You ask about my thinking / re: shorter courses. They need to defend themselves because with the absence of length -- you permit such strong and better players to have much less club in their hands. Without testing greens and surrounding areas you allow to much freedom room for such playesr to operate.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

I think the whole mind-set of "testing top amateur players" (or pros) is part of the problem.  If they come to play your course, you want the event to be exciting, but why should it matter what the winning score is?  Would the Augusta of thirty years ago really not make for an exciting tournament today?


Jeff,

I think that discussing length as an independent matter is the real problem.  For example, down here in Florida today, I saw two of the coolest and wildest greens I've seen in years, on the course Bill Coore is working on beside ours.  Those rreens are on a short par 5 and a short par 4, where he thought he could get away with them.  But if our client keeps insisting that we should make these courses 7400 yards, then he is going to stop us from building cool features like those, because those same features won't work at that length ... Which is a terrible trade-off in my view. 

[John Moore II]

Jeff:

If you want to test top amateur players then you need to be clearly in excess of 7,000 yards -- unless the course is extremely narrow with H20 located in all the key spots and including a range of forced carries and the like.

Well, I must say that Pine Valley and Pebble Beach are exceptions to that 7000 rule. PV is over 7000, but barely so, the 2009 GD Top 100 lists their back tees at 7047. And Pebble is under 7000 for sure. They seem to hold up well to the best...

Only if a course intends to host a USGA event (and only then the Am, Mid Am, Publinx, Sr Open, or Open) does a course need the big length; then of course, as I said before (with the exception of the Sr Open) you truly can't build the course too long. But if a course just wants to hold the PGA Section/State Golf Assn large championships, then 7000 is plenty, more than plenty. If it doesn't desire to host the larger events, just perhaps a One-Day event or state qualifier or something, then yardage does not matter.


Tom Doak-Why would wild features not work on a 7400 yard course? Just make up that lost yardage on another hole. Just design the hole to be played using "driver-9 iron" lets say, realizing that D-9 for Ms. Havercamp is like 200 yards at most, yet for TigerPhilBubba, D-9 is in the neighborhood of 500 yards. So, build a green designed to accept a 9 iron approach, and still drag it back monster long if they insist on length. Or is that a completely wrong idea; seems logical to me.

[Tim Gavrich]

I played a 6,500 yard golf course, CC of Waterbury (par 69), in the CT Am this year that was a challenge to the entire field.  I played a 7,100 yard golf course, Glenmore Golf Club (par 72) in Charlottesville, VA, that I found to be very short.

You can bring a course out to near 7,300 yards with long par 5s and it will play very short for good players.  Or you can have a course at 6,800 with a few tough long par 4s and moderate par 5s and it won't be so easy.  The list of things other than length that make a golf hole difficult is far too long to answer the original question of this thread definitively, IMO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,

I may be wrong, but I thought they lengthened Pebble considerably for this years US Open.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

To be honest, when I said top ams, I meant just those playing the course every day.  Again, I would give no thought to the idea of the top ams nationally on most courses I design.

And while I understand the relationship I think we can discuss length.  As Shivas said, most players want to hit driver on most holes. If a course gets too short that typically stops happening.  But it sounds like you agree with Matt - on a shorter hole maybe the greens can get a little wilder.

On the other hand, an over the top green is an over the top green no matter how short the hole is, no?  Would Bill and Ben really design a par 5 that you had to reach in two for any hope of par because 3 putting is almost assured?  Is that good design?

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff,

Just build it out to 6633, and your tee sheet will be filled all year round, you client will be ecstatic, and the players will love it. But it must have wind, because as Melvyn would tell us, without wind it's not golf.

[Sean_A]

TD,

To be honest, when I said top ams, I meant just those playing the course every day.  Again, I would give no thought to the idea of the top ams nationally on most courses I design.

Jeff

That changes things by quite a bit.  I think you could comfortably get away with well under 7000 stretched in this case.  As Tom states, I don't think a yardage target would be the goal at all.  In fact, the goal for the best course for the most people would likely entail a reverse trend with the course miles under 7000.  In any case, even if 7000 yarders are to be used for so called marketing purposes, these tees should be the long walk back and the "normal" set should be built near greens. 

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

A couple of really good (no more than 300 from the back) short par fours and a little tiddler of a par three would do most courses some good; and it'll knock at least 150-200 yards off the total length.

However, I'm not really convinced that overall length is the issue. As long as someone playing from 6300 doesn't have to walk past all the back tees as part of his round, then why would he care how far they are? Although the lengthening of the Old Course for the Open has had many negative consequences, one good thing is that a day to day golfer can still step off the green onto the next tee. Build with that mindset and it'll be fine IMO.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()