The "Added Yardage" Factor??

[Mark_Fine]

Does simply adding yardage to a course always change "everything"?  

Under the topic of change posted by Pat, Chris Kane comments that if you add yardage to holes, everything changes.  WHY?  For sure there are added maintenance costs, etc., but from a strategy standpoint, what really is the added yardage impact??  Look at it from the otherside, if you don't add yardage, isn't everything changing anyway?  

I know Donald Ross often liked to have a strong par four followed by a reachable par five (or vice versa) but they aren't what they used to be or what Donald probably had in mind when he build them.  I recently played an old Ross design called Buckhill in the Poconos (probably an Ross topo) and that 420 yard par four followed by the 485 yard par five I'm sure plays a lot different now then they did 50 years ago!

What bothers me the most about changing classic courses is when the "architectural" features of the course are changed.  I know that term will have different meanings to different people (e.g. Tom Paul doesn't even believe the pine trees at Pine Valley are part of the architecture)    But the true downsides of adding yardage still puzzel me about how to argue against that?  Help!  

Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I couldn't agree more when you say that "adding" yardage by "adding" tees is far better than changing and moving architectural features on the body of the hole itself.

A crew can set tee markers whereever appears reasonable anyday but they certainly can't do that with architectural features on the body of a hole!

Designing a golf course and planning it (the routing) for "elasticity" and the future was one of the basic concepts that old designers like your William Fynn spoke about and wrote about a good deal. Adding yardage (and tees) should be done by an intelligent architect though or it could get screwed up by someone who doesn't understand the basic strategies of golf architecture, holes etc, such as angles and other important and meaningful things.

Of course I don't think we need to talk about the lengths some people may go to to add tees and yardage. If they decide to move another hole or another green or such a thing to make room for this then the entire subject and discussion starts to change dramatically!

[Jeff Mingay]

With the ball travelling so far these days, additional yardage can enhance certain holes. But yardage should not be added simply for the sake of gaining overall length.

I think "lengthen the long holes" is good advice. Leave the short holes alone. This will keep variety intact.

Added length isn't the only solution to combating equipment technology. A mental element needs to be return to golf. Strategic options and more consistently firm turf conditions through the green must be revived.

We, as course designers and superintendents, need to force golfers to make strategic decisions again, and also to play "feel shots" and "ground shots" as opposed to playing exact yardages through the air.

Long, soft courses cater to a long ball. So, again, length isn't the answer. Interesting ground contour and firm conditions through the green is something to contemplate.

It should not be about making golf courses more difficult in response to advancements in ball and club technologies, but instead making them MORE INTERESTING.

Shot options and firmer turf conditions would be a good start in North America particularly.

[Jeff Mingay]

Additional length can also assist in making a course more interesting. But, as Tom Paul points out above, adding a new tee(s) has to be done intelligently, taking the original strategy/angle/intent of the hole into account.

I've seen too many new tees constructed, just for the sake of adding yardage, that alter the entire strategy and angle of the hole in question for the worse, and/or effect the overall variety of the holes on the course.

Take a short par 3 for example. Just because there's room for a tee extension on a 160 yarder, is there good reason to stretch this type of hole to 200 yards? Not usually.

Short par 3s add to the overall variety of a golf course. There's nothing more dull than a course on which every par 3 hovers around 200 yards.

"Lengthen the long holes"  

[Paul Richards]

A great example of adding yardage to make the scorecard
look better (longer) is the ninth hole at Flosmoor CC, south
of Chicago.  

The ninth used to be a very nice 530-550 yard (or so) par
five.  Then, at some point, apparently in the quest to make
the course longer, a green committee chopped down a tree
or two, and added a tee some 50 to 60 yards behind the
old tee.  

This tee is ill-conceived, at best.  It's hard to get to.  The
trees around it barely allow you to hit a hook or a draw.
The carry over the pond must be about 180-plus yards.  The
fairway at the landing area for this tee barely exists (I
remember hitting what I considered a good drive into the
wind, ending up in the rough before the fairway!).

In my eyes, this hole is a blatant example of what can go
wrong when a green committee goes  looking to add yardage to a scorecard.

By the way, this is hardly an indictment of the golf course
at Flossmoor.  It is a wonderful classic golf course , with this really sad back tee on the ninth hole.
sad

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
Haven't played Flosmoor so I can't comment.  Obviously there are proper ways to add additional tees as well as improper ones.  Maybe they just got it wrong on this one.  

But how about looking at it this way - Again, I don't know the golf hole but what would happen if they removed the original back tee from that hole (I'm not talking about the new one that adds the 50-60 yards)?  Now the hole is only 510 or so (I'm guessing) from the tips.  In your mind, is the hole better now that they "reduced" the yardage?  

Now put that original tee back in taking the hole back to the 530-550 yard range.  Has the hole been improved?  At what point do you have the "ideal" yardage?  I don't have the answer but I know one thing, you shouldn't base your opinion solely on your own game.  

Again, maybe we should look at this topic in reverse fashion.  What happens if courses strive to "reduce" yardage rather than add it on?  Take that 410 yard par four on your course and make it 380.  How is that different than making it 440?  Just reduce every hole by 10%.  Did the course improve?  Why is adding 10% any different?  Think about it?
Mark

[Paul Richards]

Mark:

Not sure where you are going with this.

I just pointed out one example of the flawed thinking that
surrounds many golf courses today - that to be
considered a "championship" course, your scorecard must
measure at least 7,000 yards.

By adding this ridiculous tee, they were able to add 50-70
yards to their scorecard.

[Rich_Goodale]

Paul

With all due respect, I think what Mark was trying to say politely (tell me if I am wrong, please, Mark) is why were you playing from the back tees in the first place if you have trouble making a 180 yard carry, even into the wind?

I am a reasonably long hitter, but I don't feel obliged to play from the "tips" on every course I play.  In fact, I prefer to play from tees (say 6800 yards) which best fit my current abilities.

What's wrong with courses building tees back in the woods or the gorse which you and I nver need to or really should play?

[Mark_Fine]

Rich,
That is in part what I was getting at.  Furthermore, I would like to hear people's thoughts on adding yardage vs. reducing yardage?  Isn't yardage to a big extent relative?
Mark  

[TEPaul]

Relative to what?

[Paul Richards]

Rich:

By the way, I am not a short hitter.

In fact, for a small guy, I can hit it a long way.

However, the carry I estimated at 180 could be more like
220, and, in case you don't know, this IS the windy city!

The point of the exercise is that this tee is ridiculous, and
was put there only to increase the yardage of the scorecard.

For the record, I am currently a 9-handicap.  No pro, but
no chop.  I shot a 33 this summer on the back nine at
Holston Hills, and also shot a 74 at Beverly CC.  In addition, this fall I shot a 75 from the second-to-back tees at Whistling
Straights, the day I met Pete Dye.

[David_Grant]

Jeff;  I'm sure you would agree that the key to interesting design is variety, based on what the site provides in the way of features and rythym.  It is very difficult leap to generalize that making the long holes longer would in fact make for a better result.  I understand your intent but also think Mark Fine  makes a good point in suggesting that shortening holes may have similar or greater impact on the playing character (read fun!) of many courses.  
Mark's point  . . . "Isn't yardage to a big extent relative?"  is significant.  Everything is relative.  Site conditions and the similarity between holes found on a particular course will, or should, dictate how they are altered  . . .  longer or shorter!

"Lengthen the long holes"     . . . perhaps  

[Chris Kane]

Mark Fine,

I do agree with you that things are changing anyway with the advent of technology (your example of the Donald Ross course is very good), and that over time the design of many a course will (and has in the past) become reduntant, due to length or something else.

If you add 50 yards to a hole, the strategies and methods of playing the hole have to change

As you have contended, this isn't always the case: intelligently increasing/decreasing yardage can be done while still maintaining the architectural integrity of the hole/course.

But if an existing tee is moved or a new tee created simply for the sake of extra distance, there is a danger that you lose the existing strategy of the hole.  For instance, 18 at Pebble Beach is a great risk/reward par 5.  If thirty yards were to be added, then the possibility of getting home in two would be negligable.  In that case, the risk/reward element of the golf hole has been lost.  

I believe that it is dangerous to try and mess around with a great design that has stood the test of time: except for intelligent changes such as moving back a tee in order to preserve the design and strategies that have been enjoyed before.

[TEPaul]

If a golf hole is losing it's basic strategy because there're a number of people in the club who are hitting the ball much farther today than when the hole was designed (or the tour pros come to town and that strategy needs to be preserved) than what could be wrong with adding tee yardage if you don't screw up the hole and it's strategic intent or some other hole by adding the yardage?

But what is all this talk about the relativity of adding or subtracting  tee yardage? The last I heard that's what tee markers were for. I believe you can adjust them everyday.

[Paul Richards]

Chris Kane:

Excellent argument.  I agree with you completely.

The example cited shows a tee added solely to add length,
while ruining the playing features of the hole.  In fact, it
makes the hole nearly unplayable and certainly unenjoyable.

As a matter of fact, having played it a few times to try to
figure it out, I will no longer play from that tee.

[Don_Mahaffey]

I really don't see a problem with adding yardage to a hole as long as the architectural integrity of the hole is kept intact and there are still options for all levels of players. An example, our 7th hole was 450 from the back tees, slightly downhill, with a cross bunker that covered 2/3 rds of the fairway on a hole that bent slightly from left to right and the bunker was on the inside of the bend. It was a 240 yard carry from the back tees, but if you carried the bunker you caught a down slope that propelled your ball forward resulting in a short iron or wedge approach. Whenever we had tournaments for better players they never even thought twice about the bunker, they just knocked it over and on they went, but the average players from the other tees still had the play the hole as designed. Hit it short of the bunker or out to the right, or on that occasional day when the wind was right, try and knock it over. So, we added a tournament tee and now it's a 270 yard carry for the flat bellies to carry the bunker, we are at 3000 feet and some of them still don't think twice about it, but.....it's different now. Keep in mind when we argue about added length, that the gap between the good, strong player and the average guy is the biggest thing, yes we all hit it farther, but they hit it a lot farther. What's wrong with trying to keep some of the strategy?

[Rich_Goodale]

Paul

As I have never seen Flossmoor, I defer to you on the sapecifics of hte hole you describe.  I was just trying to make the general comment that the fact that back tees exist or are created for people who hit the ball much farther than you or I, doesn't bother me.  Don gave a good example in his previous post.  Why would anybody, other than those who can carry the ball 270+, play the back tees on the hole he describes?  And yet, that back tee preserves the strategic options on the hole for the more powerful player, so it is good that it exists.

Rich

PS--I did not mean to disrespect your golf game, and apologise if my previous post came off that way.  I am in fact extremely reespectful of 9 handicappers who can shoot low scores.  Most times, if my pre-round strategy works, I call them "Partner."

[Mark_Fine]

What do I mean by yardage is relative - it's relative to the ability of the golfer e.g. to one golfer a 450 yard par four hole is 2I/7I while to another it is driver/3W.  Add 30 yards to this hole and the first golfer might not even notice the difference other than that he now hits 3W off the tee.  On the other hand the second golfer can no longer reach in two shots and really sees a difference.  

Pebble Beach's finishing hole might soon be considered a risk/reward hole (it never really was in the past)!  Move the tees up 30 yards and it might be a more interesting and exciting finish.  They can't move them back any further so returning it to a strong three shotter is not going to be an option.