The future..Par 70, 6,000 yards, 6-3's & 4-5's on 80 acres

[Emile Bonfiglio]

Really good read from Michael Bamberger on Palm Beach Country Club and how this small course makes it work.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/palm-beach-95-year-old-classic-80-acres-represents-best-hope-future-golf

[Adrian_Stiff]

Shame theres no one comenting. It makes sense though.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Thanks for posting this article.

If only developers would read it or if someone influential said something like this in the '80s or '90s. Sometimes, bigger isn't better.

LuLu is another example of a shorter Ross course that is mega fun to play.

[Jud_T]

Great article.  Should be the poster child for new development, particularly near major metro areas.  My money says you won't see an 80 acre 6200 yard course in the Sand Hills anytime soon however....and don't knock the matzoh brae & bloody mary breakfast.  best hangover cure this side of Katz's....

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for that, Emile.  Except for the matzoh, the sunshine and caribbean caddies, sounds just like the best of Scotland!

[jeffwarne]

Thanks for posting this article.

If only developers would read it or if someone influential said something like this in the '80s or '90s.

the developers would read the part about valet parking, food, and "plush",
and never get to the 80 acre part

[Garland Bayley]

I would conjecture that the fast pace of play has little to do with the shortness of the course. The club has an elderly membership that has been around a course or two in their day, so they are not out there grinding for score.

[Trey Kemp]

There are several municipal courses in Texas that are similar.  Stevens Park Golf Course in Dallas is a 6,285 yard par 70 course with 6 par 3's and 4 par 5's on 105 acres.  Brackenridge Park Golf Course in San Antonio is a 6,243 yard par 71 course with 5 par 3's and 4 par 5's on 113 acres.

[George Pazin]

i suspect most architects would tell you that 80 acres today ain't what it used to be...

[Jay Flemma]

Thanks for posting this article.

If only developers would read it or if someone influential said something like this in the '80s or '90s. Sometimes, bigger isn't better.

LuLu is another example of a shorter Ross course that is mega fun to play.

The problem is everybody wants a U.S. Open...

[Garland Bayley]

i suspect most architects would tell you that 80 acres today ain't what it used to be...

Not sure about that. I see the new guys writing that 120 acres is the minimum needed. And, guess what. The old guys wrote the same thing.

Obviously, no one is going to build a course on 80 acres and then have the top players in the world come give it a go. But, the average guy ain't hittin' it much further than before.

[George Pazin]

i suspect most architects would tell you that 80 acres today ain't what it used to be...

Not sure about that. I see the new guys writing that 120 acres is the minimum needed. And, guess what. The old guys wrote the same thing.

Obviously, no one is going to build a course on 80 acres and then have the top players in the world come give it a go. But, the average guy ain't hittin' it much further than before.

My point was more in reference to permitting, environmental or otherwise. When I look at that beautiful photo in Emile's link, the first thing that pops into my head is "No one would be allowed to build a course like that anymore".

[Frank Pont]

Funny the last course I built (Turfvaert in Holland) was Par 70, 6,000 yards, 6-3's & 4-5's on 80 110 acres 

[Sean_A]

I think courses like this should be built today and have been saying so for yonks.  However, I would probably cut out a few par 5s unless there are very good holes because every course needs a few properly long par 4s which separate golfers from wannabes.

Ciao

[Dan Smoot]

Great article.  Should be the poster child for new development, particularly near major metro areas.  My money says you won't see an 80 acre 6200 yard course in the Sand Hills anytime soon however....and don't knock the matzoh brae & bloody mary breakfast.  best hangover cure this side of Katz's....

It is a great article.  When you have expansive terrain in an isolated location like the Sand Hills, it calls for the type of courses built in Mullen, Valentine or Holyoke.  It just "fits".  I grew up playing on a 2983 yd nine hole course located in a landlocked location with elevation changes, small greens and a great mixture of various lengths and contours - no par 5.  The course still holds up well against more recent and longer city additions by RTJ Jr and Frank Hummel.  Every club still comes out of the bag.  A great golf course doesn't have to be 6500 yds plus to be enjoyable and challenging, nor does it have to be capable of hosting a tour event.  It is the future.

[Cristian]

The funny thing is. This course does not actually play short at all. If the average par 5 would be 520 yds, par 4 370 and par 3 160 yds (Total 6000 yards) this course would play 420 yards longer compared to a par 72 (4-10-4) course based on the same averages for par 5's par 4's and par 3's.

While people may think that a 6000 yds par 70 course is shortish, they might not say the same thing about a 6420 yds medal tee par 72 course, although it is equally challenging length wise.

[Carl Rogers]

How about the 5700 yard par 68 course, 2 par 5's & 6 par three's? ... the right kind of course give you all the golf you would ever want.
80 acres?

[Bill_McBride]

How many acres is Elie on?  Can't be much over 80.

[William_G]

love it!

No doubt a shorter length makes the game faster...if it were 6800 probably pushing 3:45 for those mature goofers

Also, the smaller acreage required is a huge deal except when you have the luxury of more space like on the southern Oregon Coast...

thanks

[Duncan Cheslett]

I think courses like this should be built today and have been saying so for yonks.  However, I would probably cut out a few par 5s unless there are very good holes because every course needs a few properly long par 4s which separate golfers from wannabes.

Ciao

How about the 5700 yard par 68 course, 2 par 5's & 6 par three's? ... the right kind of course give you all the golf you would ever want.
80 acres?

I agree entirely. Who needs more than a couple of par 5's?  A 450yd par 4 is far more challenging than a 520yd par 5 and takes up less ground.

How many long holes are shoehorned in on a tight property simply to get the par for the course over the magic '70' figure?

[Jeff Shelman]

Thought the story was very interesting.

I'm a guy who is a member of a club that's about 6,400, par 71 from the back tees. We have a total of about 106 acres. If you take the clubhouse, parking lot, driving range and the road that runs through the course out of the equation, we play golf on about 95 acres.

It's cramped in a couple of spots, but it isn't bad at all. And, not surprisingly, pace of play is pretty good. Also, the course, originally built in 1919, is super fun.

[Tim Gavrich]

Let's keep in mind here that Palm Beach Country Club is probably not the type of place that services a full tee sheet terribly often.  I would feel at least a little nervous during a very busy day there, seeing on Google Maps how close the holes seem to one another.  That's not to say the routing isn't brilliantly efficient.

Wannamoisett in RI hosts one of the half-dozen most prestigious amateur stroke-play golf tournaments every year and is laid out on fewer than 110 acres.  It's a par-69 golf course and I think its back tees stretch out to over 6,500 yards. So clearly, golf courses like this are out there, but I don't think enough is made of the virtues of their small geographical footprint and large virtues as a golf course.  Great article by Bamberger, but we need one of these a week to start getting people to start to figure that out!