[Niall C]

Reading a lot of the comments about length/par of courses on the Future of Course Design thread makes me ask the question, when deciding whether to play a course, how much attention do you pay to the length of the course or the par of the course ?

Yesterday I played an old favourite, one I haven't palyed for several years. Despite the course being in poor nick we had a great time. As with a lot of courses this time of year the tees were pushed well up and I suspect that the length of the course was less then Philippes ideal length as the course isn't long anyway. But its not the length that makes it a fun track. Its simply a question of seaside turf, heather, gorse and plenty of interesting features.

The only question asked whn booking the time was whether the course was on main greens. Never have I asked what the par of the course is, or what the length of it is, and neither can I recall any of my mates asking that question either. Is that just a Scottish thing or perhaps is it only GCA anoraks that ask the question ?

Niall

[Jackson C]

I think the average male golfer in the U.S., would not voluntarily play under 6000. 
It is part psychological and part ego.  It is harder when playing with a group of friends.  You don't want to be the one suggesting play from the forward tees.
There is also the element of getting one's money worth.  If you go out infrequently and are paying to play, why play shorter length and/or a course with fewer strokes.

[Mac Plumart]

I've never asked that/those questions...ever....when deciding where to play.

One of my most fun rounds ever was par 69, 5900 yards, greens stimped at 7-ish.

Perhaps don't list yardages?  Perhaps only give two sets of tees (ladies and mens)?  

In fact, I still have no idea how long Ballyneal is...and that is fun, fun, fun.  And I usually mix and match my tees at Dismal after the first day. 

[Andy Stamm]

I regularly play a course that tips out at 5800. And it gets plenty of play. And I long played a few courses that tip out in the low 6000s, but the whites are well below 6000 and that's where almost everyone plays. I don't think there's anyone that plays those courses that is worried about playing a short course. Others (status golfers) might avoid them because they don't view them as real (or championship or some other meaningless term) courses. But these course get plenty of play.

Yardage/par definitely doesn't play into other than I'd like to know that it's 18 holes or 9 and more or less a full course not all par 3s.

[Tom_Doak]

Par and yardage FROM THE TIPS ... that's what Matt Ward always wanted to know about any new course.

Personally, I don't care about the yardage at all.  The consensus opinion is that most Americans DO care, at least a little bit ... but on reflection I cannot think of many people who decided where to play based on course yardage, except at a multi-course resort where one course is clearly shorter [and also clearly sold as inferior by the resort itself].

[Adrian_Stiff]

I reckon I have dealt with a few thousand bookings over the last few years no one has ever asked what the par is, a few have mentioned they have heard its long. I think most people would know these sort of things before they make their booking anyway. I think if you were searching the net for courses to play in an area you would,largely you exclude the 9 holers and the ones that were below par 69. Probably the key figure is 6thousand something if it starts with a 5 then I think you would only look at it if it was recommended. When I went to New Orleans 1992 perhaps I only knew one course English Turn..... did I play the best one, you tell me?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have always felt that most golfers want to see a tips yardage of over (or at least near) 7000 yards, even if they have no intention of playing them.  For most, length connotes some form of quality.  It's hard to quantify things like quirk and charm numerically and people like to make quick decisions.  Oddly, the mentality of figuring a course from the tips means that often, golfers don't really stop to look at what the "real" (for them) playing yardages are, even if that would affect them most.

What is really interesting is that the par 72, 7000 yards "standard" might get skewed for courses that are par 71 or 70.  I doubt many people mentally subtract the 100-125 yards per stroke of par on the card when making their decisions and a 7000 yard par 70 is actually a pretty hard, charmless course in many instances.

An example from my recent history is La Costa, a resort where somehow the forward tees were at a whopping 6000 yards and the back tees "only" at 7000!  A lot of folks told them the course was a bit too short for them based on the 7000 (although "a lot" was probably just the vocal ones and may not reflect reality)  It was a tough course for women at that length, and seniors were playing 6400, also tough.  I trust that they will like it more now that back tees have eaked out 7150, but other tees have shortened to way more reasonable playing distances.

For example, one 19 handicap female golfer told me she was "thrilled" with the 4400 yards forward tees now because she could reach 9 of the holes in regulation (4 par 3's and 5 long holes).  Apparently, for her, most red tees gave a chance to reach almost zero long holes.  Honestly, at under 4000 yards (and near sea level, so maybe shorter) would be necessary for her to have a chance at 14-18 GIR.   BTW, we have one par 4 listed at 178 yards so women can have the thrill of reaching a par 4 on a drive, with a really long drive (almost typed "a really big bust" but somehow that doesn't seem right.......)  Seems like 4000 yards might be a barrier for them, although truthfully, at sea level, we might have shortened the course a bit more.

And, I don't see that changing as more folks get their course info from the net, although I would like it to.  Pictures (signature holes) and stats are the first vetting point someone can get from a courses website, since they probably figure the comments are heavily edited or skewed towards the positive.

Of course, word of mouth from someone you know and trust to have similar tastes would probably always be the biggest mover in people deciding where to play somewhere new.  Maybe supposedly independent reviews and the general buzz is also a big factor, regardless of stats.  But, I think it will take a lot more general buzz about courses being too long before golfers change that long held mindset that yardage is important determinant of course quality.

BTW, most studies show that for local play, the biggest length statistic determining where you play is really miles from home to the first tee.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,


While I say differently in the distance thread, I do see more intelligent golfers like you more carefully studying the mid tee yardage.  With everyone being value conscious, it just isn't much fun to get out to a course and get beat up and not have fun. 

It's the way it should be when looking at a new course, or even standing on the first tee and deciding where to play, and most times the average golfer knows what he wants as well as he knows his bar order after the round.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The problem, I suppose, is that these numbers vary from person to person so how do you decide on a one size fits all middle set of tees?

Brian you can't. Flick back time 20 years I was as long as anyone in the club but I was only about 25 yards longer than the high handicap seniors, no one hit it much further than anyone else, the range between long and short drives was not much. Today I can still just about reach a short par 5 hole in two shots but I can play with golfers that hit it one hundred yards past me. The right tee for me is the wrong tee for him. The only solution I can see is that golfers play off different tees in the same 4 ball, just like you would do if you were playing with ladies. I think its quite a big problem because playing off the wrong tees greatly affects my enjoyment when I am continually hitting woods and rescues in.

[Ken Moum]

I think the average male golfer in the U.S., would not voluntarily play under 6000. 

Where I live, four of the six courses in town are under 6,000 yards from the white tees and virtually everyone play those tees without a second thought.

At my home course, the white tees are 6430 with the next set (green) are ~5700.  I have several friends who have stopped playing the whites almost entirely, and I play the greens with them a lot.  As a short hitter I can't reach several of the par fours from the whites, and there are only about three that I can reach with 7 iron or less.

I can play to my 12 handicap from 6400 yards, thanks to a good short game, but it's a hell of a lot more fun to be hitting irons into the par fours.

K

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

Yeah, and those short courses were part of the reasaon that the NGF told the Prairie Band that a full length course would do well, even if in a down market.  So, at least the NGF uses yardage as a guide to what might work.

Adrian and Brian,

The USGA did a one day study at a NJ public course a decade ago.  While a limited sample size, and yes, tee shot distances were all over the map, there seemed to be clusters around 260, 230, 200 and 170.  (There was exactly one drive at 290 BTW)

I don't recall the exact numbers, but at 230, there might have been a dozen shots, and only4-6 at 220 and 240, for example.  Ditto at 200, with smaller clusters at 210 and 190.

So, I use those distances for design of various tees.  Obviously, if a bunker or tee placement comes out naturally at some other yardage that is close, I put it where it makes sense, and is easiest to build - usually.  I recently ran across a situation where I had moved a forward tee even further up for various reasons, but it is unpopular because those hitting the 170 yard tee shots can hit a pond that was supposed to be past their LZ. 

Its always a balance between playability for all and natural design.....

[Niall C]

The problem, I suppose, is that these numbers vary from person to person so how do you decide on a one size fits all middle set of tees?

Brian you can't. Flick back time 20 years I was as long as anyone in the club but I was only about 25 yards longer than the high handicap seniors, no one hit it much further than anyone else, the range between long and short drives was not much. Today I can still just about reach a short par 5 hole in two shots but I can play with golfers that hit it one hundred yards past me. The right tee for me is the wrong tee for him. The only solution I can see is that golfers play off different tees in the same 4 ball, just like you would do if you were playing with ladies. I think its quite a big problem because playing off the wrong tees greatly affects my enjoyment when I am continually hitting woods and rescues in.

Adrian

Interesting comments. From past posts I recall you being low handicap and therefore used to play regulation golf. Personally as someone who relies heavily on a short game to keep me below 10, hitting greens in regulation isn't the norm nor is it something I concern myself with too much. Perhaps therefore length is not the be all and end all. Also should confess to playing most of my golf on links where ideal hole length relative to par becomes academic in any kind of wind.

Jeff

You hit the nail on the head, travel distance to the course is much more important.

Niall

[Sean_A]

I don't think I have ever (which means I must have a few times) asked about distance and par of a course when booking or thinking of booking.  Though I can say if a course markets itself based on yardage that is ONE STRIKE AGAINST IT EVER GETTING MY MONEY.  Once I am at the course I try to play off short tees, but will go with the crowd if folks insist on tees further back than I would like.   This sort of thinking is USUALLY driven by younger guys in the group and most of the time they grow out of it.  I used to play a lot of golf with a chap who always wanted to step all the way back (he was never good enough either).  His first trip to Scotland (I think Brora was his first Scottish course) cured him of that.  He couldn't believe how short the tees for all the courses were and yet how difficult they were to what he was used to. 

To be honest, there are probably one or two holes which will be better from more forward tees and a few better from more back tees.  Usually, middle tees do the job.  Nearly always, I much prefer tees based on the angles presented rather than the less or more yardage.  The problem is these sorts of courses are hard to come by - archies don't generally think in angles for multiple tees - they think primarily in length and then perhaps a bit of angle. 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

I have always felt that most golfers want to see a tips yardage of over (or at least near) 7000 yards

I don't think that is true.  For sure, I haven't witnessed anyone caring about that...and I have and do play with a variety of golfers in terms of handicap, experience, likes and dislikes.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have always felt that most golfers want to see a tips yardage of over (or at least near) 7000 yards

I don't think that is true.  For sure, I haven't witnessed anyone caring about that...and I have and do play with a variety of golfers in terms of handicap, experience, likes and dislikes.

Mac - I would be near certain that 'most' do.

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall -- for me and my casual-golfing friends, I think the approach is maybe more subtle, for lack of a better word, i.e. I think we DO tend to scan a scorecard prior to playing a new course to look at the par-course length, but we do so more in relative than in absolute terms.  We try I think to get a "sense" and a "feel" for the course; we know that there are many different ways to carve up/allocate yardages over 18 holes. None of us want or need "length" in an overall or absolute sense, and we've happily played and chosen to play courses at 6,100 yards.   But if the card tells us that there are NO long Par 3s, or that ALL the Par 4s are under 400 yards, or that of the Par 5s NONE are over 500 yards, then one gets a certain feeling and sense that the course will appeal and challenge only one of our foursome and likely bore (or not be the first choice of) the rest.  (Of course, that is the case as well if we find that ALL the Par 4s are over 400 yards, and that NONE of the Par 5s is under 500 yards etc).  As I've said on here before, I think the "average golfer" is smarter and knows more about architecture (and the main purpose of architecture) than we give them credit for, even if they don't use the language or concepts we tend to around here. And what the average golfer like me and my friends tend to look for when we scan for par-length is variety and fun and challenge (and "easy" holes and "hard" holes) and the possibility of a good match-play situation and TRUE playability for golfers of all skill levels -- whether that be at a course that's 6,100 yards or one that's 6,700 yards.

Peter

I think the kind of course I described has the qualities that all GOOD courses share; I think that what GREAT courses provide are those same qualities for the INDIVIDUAL/SAME golfer over the course of his/her lifetime, from the SAME SET of tees, i.e. the course allows the beginning or average golfer to have fun and get around in about 90 strokes; and then as he gets better the course asks him to really work hard and smart to get around in 80; and then as he becomes really really good, it still challenges and amuses him and gives him the chance to get in around par if he is really at the top of his game that day.  I think the way the great course do this has been discussed forever around here, but ways include tilted/canted fairways and interesting/contoured greens and a variety of strategic choices and recovery options around the greens -- all qualities, as we notice, that are independent of length in an absolute sense.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()