Have you ever played a golf course that was "too short?"

[Greg Chambers]

yes I have, and it was a blast to play...even better is that my wife loved it!...because it was the perfect length for her...so we'll play it again...I think more courses should be "too short"!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Pat - We do a lot of booking for golf packages in our area, Painswick is a GCA fave, I try and push it as part of the package but folks dont really want to go there. Its too short is one of their reasons. Probably sub 5600 is too short.

4818 yards, par 67.  I wish I was able to join your Cotswolds Quirk Tour.   

It's not that folks don't want to go because of the short yardage, it's because they don't get it.    "What do you mean 227 yard par 4 opening hole?!".  Sad. 

Bill - Yes it would be nice if could make it to Painswick I know you are a big fan. I have loved it since 1973, but its length, condition, greens that skew the ball away dont endear the course to many, its a tough walk as well so everything is against. It has its fans, though life must be tough for Painswick, it nearly folded in the late 70s.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

Painswick is a tough one to explain or describe.  I can fully understand a love/hate dichotomy for the place.  In a sense, I equate it to Westward Ho!.  While the courses are fine with a few very high moments, it is the clubs and approach to caring for the courses I admire much more.  I think all travellers should see both courses and spend time with the memberships.  They could well be golf-life changers and that will for many lead to more endearing feeling for the courses.  I don't really want to play the courses very often, but I have a lot of time for them.  

All this said, I don't think Painswick is too short - its Painswickian length.  There is far too much other stuff happening to worry about what numbers are on a card.

Ciao

[David_Elvins]

healesville comes in at 5300 yards. 

It debuted at about No 50 in Australia's top 100 courses and is about 1000 yards shorter than the next course on the list. 



It is short but has more fun shots than almost any other course I know.  Most people I take up there love it. 

Having said that the more I play it, the more I realise it is a great second course for me, but one I would leave me slightly unfullfilled if it was the only course I played. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - There is a lot of use of the wedge at Painswick and not much sub 7 iron stuff.
1st : Wedge, 2nd : 9 iron, 3rd: Wedge, 4th: Wedge, 5th: Wedge, 6th: 3 iron, 7th: 8 iron, 8th & 9th are reachable fives so you do hit a big club 10th: Wedge, 11th: Wedge, 12th 3 wood, 13th: 7 iron, 14th: Wedge, 15th: 7 iron, 16th: Wedge, 17th: 7 iron, 18th: 8 iron.... Would that be fair?
I tend to measure a course as long by the number of holes in excess of 425 yards par 4 holes or par 3 holes over 225 yards. Painswick just hits a 1.

I can see your Westward Ho! anology.

[Sean_A]

Adrian

The thing about Painswick is a guy can have a go on many of the 4s and the 5s with a driver or lay back.  If having a go, many times that wedge second/third will not at all be a straight forward 115 yards to the middle of the green.  Its awkward little shots which often only lead to pars or worse even though the hole is reachable in one less shot than regulation.  Plus, the course plays longer than its yardage because of the dirth of 5s and multitude of 3s.  In this regard, not so different from your Stranahan course.

Length is not why I stay away, its the conditioning which lets the course down.  Plus, I hate the opening hole! 

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

The funny thing is that Shoreacres would probably be a beast for hickory golf.

NGLA was...it was incredible how using the the technology available when the course was designed further enhanced a great design.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I am not disagreeing, but in doing bookings I do hear "Painswick, No its too short". My point is that to some people it is important and with groups they often see length as a challenge.
Another thing which is very important when booking groups is buggies, if a club does provide not buggies they really disadvantage themselves, because if just 1 member of that party cant play without a buggy then the party go somewhere else and the club lose say £500.......... but thars another story

[Rob_Waldron]

Ryan

For those of us who are distance challenged off the tee Shoreacres is fantastic! I hope to get back again someday...

Rob

[Ross Tuddenham]

No, I do not think a course can be too short but courses can contain too many short holes of similar length and shot requirements.  I know, as I have been a member of a course where most holes are driver wedge (many not even full wedges) of around 300-350 yards.  It could be argued a drive and wedge hole is a 3 iron then 9 iron (or whatever combination), but if there is no advantage to be had by hitting an iron from the tee it feels forced and unnatural not to play to the optimal strategy. When you are a member of such a course you really yearn to hit the longer irons, often you just hit them from the tee for no other reason than to make sure you can still strike them.

When you do not have the space to make the par 4’s over 400 yards I guess the opportunity to add variety of shots through varying hole lengths is totally constrained.  Similar length in itself would not be an issue as long as the holes played differently from each other.  Without interesting land forms it is hard to see how this is achievable. A great set of greens?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

It’s true Driver-Wedge can get boring.

I get more of a kick landing a 6-iron on the green than a Pitching Wedge

Well there’s no law saying you have to use your driver off the Tee. Try creating you own shots, rather than following the standard “longest shot first”.

I play a few courses nearby where the Par 4’s can get repetitively “short”, however I choose to create interesting second shots by taking a 3-Wood or iron off the Tee and by carrying a half set of clubs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I like shorter courses so I am hitting a variety of irons to the greens, but not all driver wedge.

I played in a pro-am in 1982, with dream pairings with Fuzzy Zoeller, Tom Watson, Gary Player and Calvin Peete.  I was “just a little” behind them (except Fuzzy) in tee shot distance encouraging me to play at 6700 yards am tees while they played at 7000+ (it was on four courses with different yardages)

Now, I cannot come as close to Bubba Watson as I did to Tom Watson, and have no desire to play anything near the prodigious distance of PGA Tour Pros, which finally may be convincing me (and hopefully the rest of us) to play shorter courses, allowing us to hit similar clubs to on approach shots, rather than play similar yardage, and to occasionally reach par 5 holes in two.

For me, that is a course from 6000-6400 yards (down from 6800 yards a decade ago) depending on weather, etc.  Statistically, I now fit in the majority of golfers who prefer to play that distance!

I will say that playing the new family tees at La Costa, at 4400 yards and giving a lot more chances to drive greens, reach par 5's etc. was a fun change of pace.  However, I wouldn't like a steady diet of that.

[Jason Topp]

I play from shorter tees on one of my trips due to a variety of handicaps being involved in the competitions.  For the most part playing from the shorter tees is fun but it depends on the design of the course.  Some choke off the tee shot beyond the anticipated driver distance.  Those courses become "too short" for my tastes because one is forced to constantly lay up off the tee.

[Lou_Duran]

I expect Lou likes all the par 54s because they make a course play easier than if only one or two are in play.  Thats how Swinley, New Zealand etc play hard, but look easy on the card - cases of false expectations in terms of what yardage means - among my favourite types of courses.  

I like par 5s, particularly if they are well-designed, because of the added variety they can provide.  Not being a particularly good wedge player, I don't play them all that well- certainly not like the pros who often have a near full shot advantage relative to par as compared to the 3s.  In the case of New Zealand, a club I liked very much, it is not the lack of long holes that makes it "not easy", but the mostly constant use of very penal heather.  If I didn't enjoy hitting my driver, I might leave most anything above my hybrids out of the bag to shoot a lower score there.  Some, perhaps Tom Doak, might argue that the greens are the soul of golf.  For me, variety- hitting all types of shots with all the clubs- is where it is at.  It is one of the reasons I enjoy playing Jeff Brauer's courses which, invariably, provide a full, fun test.

Total yardage is not what makes a course short; in addition to elevation, climate, and weather, it is mostly the result of how the distance is allocated, how the landing areas, hazards, and greens are sited, and how the course is maintained.  

[Philippe Binette]

I've played a lot more courses that were too narrow than that were too short.

a well designed course, even if there is 5-6 holes of less than 320 yards and the total yardage is 5800 can be a blast

[Michael Essig]

As I read through this string, the issue raised by most is variety. A course is too short when it lacks variety of hole lengths, and as a result you are hitting the same clubs over and over.  Doesn't good design require you to hit every club in the bag? Which makes me think it is a bad design and not the overall length of the course.

[Bill_McBride]

Yes, I like shorter courses so I am hitting a variety of irons to the greens, but not all driver wedge.

I played in a pro-am in 1982, with dream pairings with Fuzzy Zoeller, Tom Watson, Gary Player and Calvin Peete.  I was “just a little” behind them (except Fuzzy) in tee shot distance encouraging me to play at 6700 yards am tees while they played at 7000+ (it was on four courses with different yardages)

Now, I cannot come as close to Bubba Watson as I did to Tom Watson, and have no desire to play anything near the prodigious distance of PGA Tour Pros, which finally may be convincing me (and hopefully the rest of us) to play shorter courses, allowing us to hit similar clubs to on approach shots, rather than play similar yardage, and to occasionally reach par 5 holes in two.

For me, that is a course from 6000-6400 yards (down from 6800 yards a decade ago) depending on weather, etc.  Statistically, I now fit in the majority of golfers who prefer to play that distance!

I will say that playing the new family tees at La Costa, at 4400 yards and giving a lot more chances to drive greens, reach par 5's etc. was a fun change of pace.  However, I wouldn't like a steady diet of that.

But can you really hit the same clubs for approach shots?   If the shorter tee gives both a 150 yard approach, that's going to be a 6-iron for me and a PW for a tour player.   I don't think it's really possible to equalize with a 1500 yard difference.   Or more.

[Joe_Tucholski]

As I read through this string, the issue raised by most is variety. A course is too short when it lacks variety of hole lengths, and as a result you are hitting the same clubs over and over.  Doesn't good design require you to hit every club in the bag? Which makes me think it is a bad design and not the overall length of the course.

I have to agree with the statement that the issue raised by most is variety...but I'm a lot more forgiving to a course that is longer and lacks variety than a course that is shorter and lacks variety.

For example I played DeBell Golf Club a few months ago and left thinking the course was too short.  Looking back I guess it wasn't really the length it was the fact that many of the holes were short doglegs where the trees pretty much dictated my play as iron-wedge.  There are many courses I've played frequently where I hit driver wedge and I don't have as strong a distaste.