Does a Golf Course need to be over 6,500 Yards?

[Sean_A]

I rejiggered CBM's ideal course numbers by 25%, but didn't add a yard to the 3s and 5s.  The new numbers come out to 7166, an increase of 1100 yards on CBM's ideal course.  Six par 5s and five par 3s.  Not a single par 4 under 375 yards.  These are not numbers which conjur up the ideal course to me.  I much prefer the look of CBM's outdated, but more useful numbers which could be boosted by 450 yards for championship play.  I also ads that CBM only counted length as 13% of the importance of a course and significant percentage of that was variety of length.  Bunkers and other hazards are equally as important in CBM's mind and the greens more important.  However, by far the most aspect of a CBM course is the nature of the soil, undulations and hillocks.  Undulations and hillocks themselves are classed as more important than any other feature save for the soil of the greens.  If you think about it, that is incredible and must hark back to TOC.

Ciao

[JR Potts]

We do keep going around and around becuase I think John's point has largely gone ignored.

If in 1900, there were truly only a handfull of players who could hit the ball 250 yards, and we still built course after course at yardages of 6400+, why would one build a course today at approximately 6500 when a large population of golfers hit the ball 250+ and many hit it 300+.

Don't we go on and on here about the genius of these golden age architects?  Given the playing ability back on the late 1800s and early 1900s were these architects really genius or were they building unplayable slogs as most every player didn't have the ability and length to get to most of the par 4 and 5s in regulation?

People hit the ball considerably longer today - that much can't be debated.  If we are seeking a challege equal to the challege presented by the great architects of the late 1800s and early 1900s, don't these courses need to be well over 6500 yards?  I say yes.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan:

There were certain courses from the classic period that were slogs -- one had to hit likely two woods -- a driver followed by the brassie or even the spoon.

Frankly, I find it hard for all courses to be all things to all players. It's extremely tough to do and when you have the range of players playing today - those at the top 1-5% can do certain things that if the higher handicaps have to mimick to a certain degree the probability will be failure time after time.

Ryan, when you posted the club selection you hit -- few people on this site can relate to it. The result for some is to penalize such a player with contrived set-ups that pull the driver and other similar long clubs out of your hands. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Mac Plumart]

"People hit the ball considerably longer today - that much can't be debated.  If we are seeking a challege equal to the challege presented by the great architects of the late 1800s and early 1900s, don't these courses need to be well over 6500 yards?  I say yes."

Ryan...excellent point!  And this is a reason why I've discussed in the past a need for modern tournament quality courses and not continued mangling of classic gems with lengthening and rennovations/updates.

Different courses for different horses.  Give the top tier players their Shangri-La and give the more average players their's.  Although I am currently a high single digit handicapper, I find playing over 6,800 yards to be boring and monotonuous.  Driver, 3 iron, 4 iron something like that.  Much like you say, driver, wedge.  

I prefer the challenges of the short game and trying to hit fun shots.  Bouncing 7 irons into greens, playing around with low running chips/pitches vs. high arching ones.  Therefore, I really like great green contours.  

If I was a big hitter, like perhaps you or Mr. Becker (whom I've seen play), I know I would like different challenges.  That only makes sense.  

But to be an elite player, you plain and simply have to be long and have a great short game.  To get that comparable experience that you mentioned (distance wise), we need courses that are very long with excellent greens.  No doubt about it.  BUT that is NEEDED for only a small percentage of the golfing community.  So, I see both sides on this issues.  Different courses are needed.

[George Pazin]

No 10+ handicap should be allowed to play a course longer than 6500 yards.

And adding to that no 20+ handicap should be allowed to play past 6000 yards.

Pat,

At my club, the "boys" play the tips, just over 7,000 every Thursday.  They have caps between 8 and 32.  They have an absolute blast and I enjoy playing with them on occasion even though I'm giving up two shots on a number of holes.  These guys have been playing the course for 20+ years so they know all the preferred angles.  They play in in 3 hours and 20 min and take as much satisfaction in making a par on a long par 4 as I do making an eagle on a par 5.   What's so wrong with that?

Again, the arguement isn't all about slow play. And your example is one where they change tees once a week. God bless them if they want to shoot 120+ whacking away until their backs give out, but that's hardly playing the golf course properly IMO. What strategy or desicion making does a 30 handicap make on a 7000 hard golf course? Which part of the fairway to bunt it towards and hoping he can get to the green in 4 shots on a 400 yard hole???

That's like going back to playing golf as a 9 year old playing with your uncles non-cut down 3-wood. No fun in my book. I'd quit golf before I had to play 7500+ or 8000+ yard courses everyday which would probably be the equivalent for me.

Pat, you might be surprised to learn that for some, it doesn't make a really big difference in score no matter what yardage you're playing. I tend to shoot similar numbers (within 10 strokes, which is about as consistent as I ever am) no matter the yardage, because length is not what I am lacking in my game.

[JR Potts]

But I don't think different courses are needed.  There are some classics that are landlocked but that's just fine.  I think that additional tees are a great way to make a lot of these courses, with space, playable for everyone.  Pine Valley for instance - with the addition of the new tees, the course is entirely challenging for the greatest of players and the course featues are still appropriately placed.  It's perfect.

Like I said, some courses don't have the space to expand - so be it.  They are still great courses....and not every course has to host a major.  In fact, if my course didn't receive such a financial benefit from it, I could away with them in no time.

But Matt, like you stated, there is nothing worse than contrived set-ups to take driver out of one's hand...but, there aren't many great classics that do it.

It means nothing to most that a course has the flexibility to play at 7800 yards - when it is set up routinely at 6700.  The only people who should care (outside of the minor maintenance cost) are the guysp stuck behind the group of guys who are playing the wrong tees.

And George - I just read your post - you are entirely correct.  My dad is a 10 and hits the ball plenty far....he can shoot 78 on ANY length course and 98 on ANY length course.

[Matthew Sander]

Ryan,

What keeps lingering in my mind in relation to this discussion and the other thread about longer courses is that even though players are hitting the ball much longer with more advanced equipment than 100 years ago, it is not as if scores are getting obscenely low. Plenty of golfers (good, average, and below average) regularly play at 6500 or less, yet I don't see an inordinate amount of sub 70 scores flying around. I'm sure there are explanations for this phenomena, for example that short game execution and creativity isn't what it used to be for most; or that players spend too much time practicing with the long clubs (or not practicing at all - guilty as charged ). That said, with scores and handicaps being stagnant I don't see a need to make the game more difficult for the masses. The ultimate goal is to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible regardless of whether the approach is with a wedge or a 4 iron.

I think you probably agree and you pointed out that even though you were smoking your driver and using primarily wedges for approaches at Merion, you still shot 74 or 75 (which I gather is not an exceptional score for you).  I think your points make sense and there are plenty of options (and should be IMHO) for players to seek and find longer and more challenging courses. I'm a subscriber to the big world theory and don't think we need to make blanket claims either way.  

[JR Potts]

Matt:

I don't disagree with anything you've written - although I do question the stat that players haven't improved (maybe we now have a bigger sample size to draw from?  I don't know if that's fact or not).

My point is that one should not make a blanket statement that 6500 should not be eclipsed?  Why, because they don't need it much longer and can't conceptualize a different game.  I am entirely understanding that 6500 may be about the right length for a vast majority of players - but it isn't for everyone.  Why not make the attempt (while I understand it's more work for architects) to provide as much flexibility in design as possible?

And I understand that it makes no difference what club one is hitting into greens.  I witnessed Terry Lavin stick 3 5-woods within 5 feet at Erin Hills last week while I was missing greens with 8 irons.  I get that as well.  But, if one is going to compete for as much golf business as possible, accomodations unfortunately have to be made for all players....even if they, gasp, hit it far.

And I was quite satified with my score at Merion.  I 3 putted 5 or 6 times as I left my approaches in some awful places.  Those greens are quite a challenge for a Merion-virgin.

[Matthew Sander]

Ryan,

To sum it up, I think we absolutely agree. My previous post probably didn't do a good job of making my point...I should write, read, and rewrite better ...

BTW - I don't have any statistical support for the suggestion that players haven't improved, only my perception (which is near worthless...)

[Dan Boerger]

Ryan - I don't know which I'm most impressed with: Your drive on #5, #6 or #14. That's long my friend!

[Garland Bayley]

They have stretched Merion now to over 6800 yds from the back tees but still, it is a great course at 6400 yds as well!! And at 6400 yds one will still most likely hit every club in the bag.

This is such a fallacy and it gets thrown around here with such regularity.  Merion, if you're driving it well is quite one diminutional from an approach shot perspective.  In June, I hit the following from the tips:
1.   Hybrid LW
2.   Driver, six iron out of the hazard on the left, LW
3.   Four iron
4.  Driver, hybrid, chip
5.  Driver, 9
6.  Driver, PW
7.  Driver, LW
8.  Driver, LW
9.  8 iron
10.  Driver, LW
11.  3 iron, LW
12.  Driver, PW
13.  LW
14.  Driver, PW
15.  Driver, PW
16.  Driver, PW
17.  Hybrid
18.  Driver, PW

Where's this great diversity?  The fact of the matter is that some courses need to be over 7400 to challenge ones long iron play.  6500 is fun but I certainly don't want to play it every day.

Ryan,

What would you think of a course like this

130 155 180 205 230 255 280 305 330 355 380 405 430 455 480 505 530 555 = 6165
W    9I    7I   5I    3I    3W 1W  1/2 1/2  LW SW GW 9I  8I    6I    4I    2I    3W

as perhaps a par 70 (or dare I say it? 69) for you?

[Jud_T]

Looks like a par 65 for Ryan....

[JR Potts]

Garland - it would be a blast to play.  Further, it would be a great scotch game course.  To me, it's not a ton unlike Medinah Course #2...a course I love and grew up playing.  [Which ironically enough, was originally designed to be the Championship Course at Medinah and hasn't been altered since that design].

Yds  396 414 137 296 316 153 527 434 456 3129 311 400 347 484 330 188 491 180 350 3081 6210

Par    4     4    3     4    4     3     5    4    5     36    4    4     4     5    4     3     5    3    4     36     72


And it's a par 72 and I can hit driver on every single hole.  Rarely do I get into the 60s and rarely do I get into the 80s.

That said, I wouldn't want to play it as my home course all the time.    

[JR Potts]

Looks like a par 65 for Ryan....

You seem to foget the part where I mentioned my putting.  

And, as some on here can attest, I don't always know where my driver is going....or when I make a bad swing, any club.  With clubhead speed comes a whole difference directional variance.

That said, if I shot above 72 on that course, I wouldn't feel like I had a very good day.

[JESII]

Ryan,

Are you sure you played the tips on 5, 6 and 18 at Merion?

[Garland Bayley]

Ryan - I don't know which I'm most impressed with: Your drive on #5, #6 or #14. That's long my friend!

Dan,

Apparently you didn't read the whole thread. His clubs, in particular his lob wedge, have caught vanishing loft disease.
 

[JR Potts]

Jim - you are correct - we did not play the alternate tee on 6 as the tee was there for 3 I believe.  Not sure on 5.  And looking back on 18, there may have been one tee pad behind us - not sure though.  We were guests so we only played the "back tees" - they orange or red?

Nonetheless, that's where we played from.

And what?  Is a 58 not a lob wedge anymore?

[Garland Bayley]

Looks like a par 65 for Ryan....

Did I mention the moat around the small green of the 255 yard hole? 

Seriously, half par holes can be configured with serious defenses at the green, because even the high handicappers are going to be hitting wedge.

And I am not above using doglegs around Douglas fir trees so the shot has to be shaped.

[Garland Bayley]

...
And what?  Is a 58 not a lob wedge anymore?

No, you have to go the other direction. 62 or 64 degrees with the modern ball.

[JESII]

Jim - you are correct - we did not play the alternate tee on 5 or 6 as the tee was there for 3 I believe.  And looking back on 18, there may have been one tee pad behind us - not sure though.  We were guests so we only played the "back tees" - were they orange or red?

Whew...thank goodness. Still pretty strong.

If you would have just hit 3 or 4 iron instead of some of those drivers I'm sure you would have than had some 7 or 8 irons into the greens and then you would have felt that Merion calls for every club in the bag...

[JR Potts]

That's true - and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

My personality doesn't allow me to not hit driver.

[JESII]

No doubt...but seriously, is there a course on the planet that asks you to hit every club? The International in Mass. maybe, but not many others based on how far those drives are going and that you hit it on every hole.

[Jim Briggs]

That's true - and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

My personality doesn't allow me to not hit driver.

Of course, because you smash the f&^(ing driver....that's what you do.  

[Jud_T]

Apparently this is an issue for the "ladies" as well:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/national/101310-transgender-golfer-sues-lpga-ncx

 

[JR Potts]

At this stage in my life, golf is about laughs, comeraderie and stories.  If I'm playing a new course, say Merion, I would rather come away saying that I drove the 10th green and hit #4 in two than I would, "I grinded it out to shoot 78."  If a caddy says they've never seen anyone hit a certain par 5...bet you butt I'm trying as I know there are thousands of golfers better than me...but maybe, just maybe, there's someone who hasn't hit that green in two.

I don't know...maybe it's stupid....strike that....it's stupid...but I have a good time with it.