Length is overrated

[Ben Sims]

I played golf today with a good friend on a very nice little layout in southwest Oklahoma called Quartz Mountain.  The tips were at 6450yds, +/- a few yards.  The mids were at 6000.  My friend acquiesced to playing the tips.  He's an average golfer with good clubhead speed and shoots in the high 80 to mid 90 range consistently.

As last night's cold front continued on, the wind got up pretty good after the first few holes.  Hope was lost on my friend.  I mercifully finished him early in the back nine.  Why did this happen?  Wind and length.  The difference on some holes between a 9-iron and a 6-iron (just to use one example) was too much to overcome based on his ballstriking ability.  On the tee we were relatively even.  But once it was time to target the green, he just couldn't hit lower lofted shots squarely into the smallish greens.    

Which led me back to one of the things we always talk about on this board.  Optimal length for fun vs. challenge.  In a world where a guy like my friend who is exactly the kind of guy golf needs to play more; why do many golf courses insist on longer tees?  I wouldn't have enjoyed our round any less from 6000, and he was miserable at 6500 in a stiff wind.  I think when we talk about technology and its correlation to the proper length for golf courses, we are looking at the wrong people.  

Unrelated, I'd like to thank all of our GCA.com veterans for their sacrifice towards the safety of our nation.  No matter what side you fall on with regard to our country's recent quadrennial debate, our nation owes all who have sworn an oath to support and defend our Constitution a heartfelt thank you.  

[Peter Ferlicca]

Hey Ben,

Thank you very much for serving our country, your the one who deserves praise along with our other veterans and troops. 

I agree completely about length being overrated.  It seems that every time I play golf with someone, they opt to play the set of tees with me that isn't suited towards their game.  I insist that they should play the tees farther up, and they always reply with, "oh, it's ok, I will play the same tees as you."  This then proceeds to me watching them struggle the whole round trying to hit long irons into par 4's and so on.  The two summers I have spent in the Northwest, I have been trained on how distance doesn't matter.  Courses like Broadmoor up there are 6,400 yards, but are the longest courses you will ever play, and yet they are soooooo short on the scorecard. 

Why not play golf like the pros on TV do hitting short irons into every green?  Why is it that everyone feels like they aren't challenged if they aren't hitting long irons into every par 4?  Isn't golf supposed to be fun?   I just don't understand why everyone always wants to make it more difficult for them when they play golf, wouldn't it be more fun making more birdies and not grinding out pars. 

[Ben Sims]

Peter,

To your last sentence, it's more about not making double and triple bogeys than making birdies.  I think minimizing big numbers is the way to get casual golfers to play more. 

[Sean_A]

Ben

I agree with you 100%.  Archies, developers and golfers focus on yardage to the detriment of the game.  They have the easy blame card in citing technology being the culprit when in fact this isn't the case at all.  The truth is every time more yards are piled on it is down to someone making a decision to make it so.  See the 500 yard par 4 thread, imo opinion the exact wrong direction architecture should be heading because its short sighted.  In a few years the title will change to 525 yard par 4s - that battle of trying to make very good players hit long irons/woods is a waste of time and money.  The sad thing is I think most archies know this, yet do little to fight the extra length attitude.  For me, this is the most disappointing aspect of archies - they are not properly in control of their field.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean has hit the nail on the head. However, the culture of longer been the deciding factor of excellence is industry driven and unlikely to change unless the governing bodies finally find the courage to do what is best for the game and sort the ball out.

A GCA could help combat this with more movement in the greens but then I doubt that they would get the work after the first course or two.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

The reason is: to offer a challenge to those who hit the ball a mile.

There's no mandate that says every golfer has to play the back tees, that's a choice each golfer makes.
But, if every course was at 6,500, the longer hitters, the better players wouldn't be presented with a commensurate challenge.

Length, as TEPaul states, is one of the primary assets/challenges of the game.

[Jud_T]

Ben,

I agree completely.  I started playing up with my son and the real surprise was how much more I enjoyed the game.  For most mid-to-high handicappers, having a wedge into a par 4 is a novel experience.  Having a chance at birdie instead of a chance at par on a regular basis is a new sensation.  As you mention, being able to play an entire round without a double or triple bogie is unheard of for most.  Additionally, I think in many instances this puts the lie to the USGA handicap system.  I can score significantly better than the course handicap differential would predict from 6000 than I can from 6500 on most courses.  Given that very few golfers can hit the ball over 250 even in the best of conditions, the game would be a lot more popular, cheaper and quicker if there were a bunch of really fun 6000 yard courses around.  Once the status and macho bubble was burst you'd find a lot of lonely expensive CCFAD's lying fallow.

P.S. Thanks for your service and that of all our servicemen and women.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jud,

I'm finding just the opposite of what you stated.

I tend to play with a broad spectrum of golfers, but, the younger guys I play with, and their handicaps range from low to medium to bordering on high, all seem to hit the ball a long way.

As Shivas once stated, "chicks love the long ball" and so do golfers.
300 yard holes can be fun, but, not as a steady diet.
Golfers need to be challenged and length is a definite if not a required challenge with today's I&B.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I agree with Jud's last statement that the game would be a whole lot more fun if there was a bunch of 6,000 yard courses around.... But equally don't underrate the desire (and fun) to be had by the lower handicap golfer needing a few long irons in to greens - After all this has always been an integral part of the game back to Darwin and cronies...

Therefore I'd say we need a lot more of the 6,000 yard courses... But equally we still need a lot of 6,800 - 7,000 yard courses.... It's the 7,400 yard courses I'd like to see less of.... As there are too many of this ilk in proportional terms to the amount of pro / plus golfers on the planet...

[Mark Saltzman]

Ben,

I agree completely.  I started playing up with my son and the real surprise was how much more I enjoyed the game.  For most mid-to-high handicappers, having a wedge into a par 4 is a novel experience.  Having a chance at birdie instead of a chance at par on a regular basis is a new sensation.  As you mention, being able to play an entire round without a double or triple bogie is unheard of for most.  Additionally, I think in many instances this puts the lie to the USGA handicap system.  I can score significantly better than the course handicap differential would predict from 6000 than I can from 6500 on most courses.  Given that very few golfers can hit the ball over 250 even in the best of conditions, the game would be a lot more popular, cheaper and quicker if there were a bunch of really fun 6000 yard courses around.  Once the status and macho bubble was burst you'd find a lot of lonely expensive CCFAD's lying fallow.

P.S. Thanks for your service and that of all our servicemen and women.

Jud, as you know, I don't hit it very far but like Pat, my experience is the opposite of yours.  For me, the scoring difference between 7k and 6.5k is negligible.  BUT, I have a lot more fun at 6.5k.  I've learned that over the past year or two and now have no problem leaving the back sets for the bombers. 

For me, interacting with the golf course / architecture is much less about shooting x score, but hitting to / being in the places that require the decisions.

[Randy Thompson]

I agree with both Patricks post. The course I wrote about in the 500 plus yards thread. Has only one par four from the back over 400 and is 420 and will play predominantly with the wind. The course can be played from a par 33 to a par 38 and you can select a course from 5000 yards to 6500 as the maximum. You can please some of the people some of the time but you can´t realistically please all the people all the time. I think the course will be fun for the majority of the players but I wanted one time..just one time..present the oportunity for a strong player to have something more than a driver and a wedge and I fiqured I had accomplished that with the 443 yard par four ninth or eighteenth. I really didn´t put a lot of importance to distances, I let the land dictate those distances through extrodinary green sites and using the dry drainage canal to the max as it wanders throughout the site. In fact the hole was built as a par five and after finishing the shaping we discovered also an ideal situation for the alternative par four.  The hole does not work for a longer tee as a par four but if it did I would feel comfortable adding another forty yards to challenge the strong players..one time!

[Ivan Morris]

Forget 'length' from a challenge point of view. Think about the extra time it takes to get around 18-holes plus the extra construction and maintenance costs. Golf is too expensive and too slow. The demands on a family's income and time are rendering golf unattractive and obsolete more quickly than is realized.   

[Jud_T]

Pat,

I have no problem with a 475 yard par 4.5,  which might well be found on a well designed 6000 yard course.  I do have a problem with an inordinate number of 400-425 yard par 4s.  This is a grind for the shorter hitter but doesn't really challenge the big guns.

[PCCraig]

Length is the most overrated aspect of golf course architecture. I believe that longer courses are generally easier for better players. Most ~scratch golfers today hit the ball long and straight...driving the ball has never been easier due to technology...making the effective length of most holes not as long as they should be. What I believe really challenges better players is a golf course that throws a bunch of curve balls not seen on many "championship" courses...blind shots, half-par holes, awkward lies, small greens, lots of green slope, and uphill approaches.

My home course has been described as "short, tight, and goofy," but with it's rock hard conditioning, fast greens, and awkward (by modern standards) shots it defended itself in the State Mid-Am with an average score of 82...playing at sub-6400 yards on a piece of property that's less than 95 acres. I believe a big part of the higher stroke average is due to a field that's hit nothing but "fastballs" seeing their first curve and knuckleballs. Lots of swing and misses  

[Rich Goodale]

At least 99% of all golfers, including (I presume) everybody so far posting on this thread, cannot carry their driver 250 yards in the air consistently and accurately, and this means that any golf hole which requires such superhuman qualities to be played effectively loses the plot as to what golf is about and is therefore highly overrated.

[Jeff Tang]

Ben,

I agree completely.  I started playing up with my son and the real surprise was how much more I enjoyed the game.  For most mid-to-high handicappers, having a wedge into a par 4 is a novel experience.  Having a chance at birdie instead of a chance at par on a regular basis is a new sensation.  As you mention, being able to play an entire round without a double or triple bogie is unheard of for most.  Additionally, I think in many instances this puts the lie to the USGA handicap system.  I can score significantly better than the course handicap differential would predict from 6000 than I can from 6500 on most courses.  Given that very few golfers can hit the ball over 250 even in the best of conditions, the game would be a lot more popular, cheaper and quicker if there were a bunch of really fun 6000 yard courses around.  Once the status and macho bubble was burst you'd find a lot of lonely expensive CCFAD's lying fallow.

P.S. Thanks for your service and that of all our servicemen and women.

Jud, as you know, I don't hit it very far but like Pat, my experience is the opposite of yours.  For me, the scoring difference between 7k and 6.5k is negligible.  BUT, I have a lot more fun at 6.5k.  I've learned that over the past year or two and now have no problem leaving the back sets for the bombers. 

For me, interacting with the golf course / architecture is much less about shooting x score, but hitting to / being in the places that require the decisions.

This last sentence to me is well stated.  Too much of any one thing is just that, too much.  If I find myself hitting nothing but hybrids and fairway woods into par 4’s then I’m playing a length that’s too long for me and it’s no fun.  I feel like I’m missing out on experiencing the architecture and not enjoying the way the holes were designed to be played.  Conversely if I’m hitting nothing but pitches and wedges into greens then this can get a bit tiresome as well.  In these cases I also am probably missing some of the strategic intent of the architecture.  I find the best courses for me are those where I need to hit some long irons / hybrids / fairway woods into some holes, some mid-irons into others, and some short iron to wedge shots into others.   A good mix makes for an interesting and challenging and ultimately fun day. Stepping onto a course and knowing you’re not going to play well just purely due to the length of the course makes for a long day.

Also, something that doesn’t seem to get mentioned much is how a course is made up of the yardage that it is.  ie, where does the yardage fall within the par 3’s, 4’s, and 5’s.  Generally speaking I’m at about my yardage limit when a course gets up to 6900 – 7000 yards and above.  However, I’m much more likely to be able to handle a course of 7000 yards when the par 5’s have a lot of the yardage in them.  I feel that I can play par 5’s reasonably well even if they are in the 550-600 yard range (240 yard drive, 200 yard second, will only leave 160 in for the third on a 600 yard hole).  If I’m playing a 7000 yard course and the par 5’s are in the 500-550 yard range  then the par 4’s generally become too long for me to reasonably expect to score well on or play the way that they are intended to.

[Ben Sims]

Great comments so far.  Reading them leaves me with three thoughts to leave challenge for low handicap golfers while staying true to the ideas presented in the OP.

1)  Ball rollback.  I think it will eventually have to happen, but not soon.

2)  Much larger differences between back tees and mid.  For instance, maybe the course I played yesterday should have a back set at 7000, and the mid set at 6000.  This would solve the problem of casual golfers (like my friend yesterday) saying that there really isn't a big difference between the tips and the mid's.

3)  Try not to design holes in the "bermuda triangle" of distances.  The dreaded 325yd-425yd par 4.  I think that range clearly benefits long hitters.

What do you think?  

[Sean_A]

Ben

If I were ever to get behind long medal tees, I think it would have to be the scenario you suggested.  The back tees are so far back that many of the pretenders who step back to the back tees normally would scoff.  Perhaps not a 1000 yard difference, but that is certainly in the right direction.  This takes away any excuse an archie can have for designing a very good course for the vast majority of players.  Mind you, think of an extra 50 yards per hole for the back tees.  The cost involved in that would surely become obvious to clubs as a waste of money - then its back to 6200, 6500, 6700 and 7000 yards - for the men alone.  If I could have an absolute guarantee that clubs would immediately eliminate at least half their tees based on length alone, I would be all for a rollback, but that ain't gonna happen.  If a rollback comes, the courses will be not be shortened - they will just play even longer for Joe Schmoe.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Great comments so far.  Reading them leaves me with three thoughts to leave challenge for low handicap golfers while staying true to the ideas presented in the OP.

1)  Ball rollback.  I think it will eventually have to happen, but not soon.

2)  Much larger differences between back tees and mid.  For instance, maybe the course I played yesterday should have a back set at 7000, and the mid set at 6000.  This would solve the problem of casual golfers (like my friend yesterday) saying that there really isn't a big difference between the tips and the mid's.

3)  Try not to design holes in the "bermuda triangle" of distances.  The dreaded 325yd-425yd par 4.  I think that range clearly benefits long hitters.

What do you think?  

Ben:

I've tried to stay out of the discussion so far to see where it was leading.  Now I'll contribute a bit:

1.  Ball rollback would be great, but we can't count on it happening anytime soon.  I do believe that 99% of golfers would be fine with a shorter ball, as soon as they figure out that it's not how far you hit it that brings you back, it's how solid you hit it.

2.  Jack Nicklaus talked about this at Sebonack -- though his yardages were 7500 and 6500 -- but we didn't do it, partly because the client didn't want to.  There are always going to be people who object to not providing tees at whatever length they like.  If you did it your way, they would quickly make up "combo" tees while lobbying for a new set.  Bottom line, if the golfers cannot control themselves in choosing what tees to play from, architects cannot do it for them!  

3.  I think you're dead wrong on #3 ... or on setting ANY distance that should be avoided, particularly since it is ever-changing.  I think the solution is to have as great a mix as possible.

[Mark Pearce]

Ben,

One of my favourite holes at my home club is the 8th, which is 350 yards and plays, for me, anything from driver, wedge to driver, 5 iron, depending on the wind (which is nearly always against, in winter the hole plays 50 yards shorter and the wind is more often following).  There's nothing wrong with holes in that range, if they're good holes.  It's the unremitting diet of 400-450 yard holes that can grind.  Elie is great fun, with plenty of short par 4s.  On a course like that the 440 yard 9th and 460 yard 12th are great and add to the rhythm of the course.  12 holes like that would be a slog.

[jeffwarne]

Great comments so far.  Reading them leaves me with three thoughts to leave challenge for low handicap golfers while staying true to the ideas presented in the OP.

1)  Ball rollback.  I think it will eventually have to happen, but not soon.

2)  Much larger differences between back tees and mid.  For instance, maybe the course I played yesterday should have a back set at 7000, and the mid set at 6000.  This would solve the problem of casual golfers (like my friend yesterday) saying that there really isn't a big difference between the tips and the mid's.
  

Bingo
and if 1 won't happen, 2 is a good option. ((think ANGC)
and those that want something in between can just alternate tees as neded and don't make me make a combo scorecard!!!!!
drives me crazy that there have to be 4 tees on every hole at just the right distance so  everybody can interface with the same hazards with a similar strategy/
except some mid tee players that shoot 90 hit it 280 and others that shoot 90 hit it 170

the bigger joke is expecting designers to situate tees so players can have similar irons in (except some women drive it 240 and others 90.

to elaborate on Ben's point 4800,6100, 7300 (with a good mix of long and short ) should fulfill anyone's mix and match fantasies.

[Ben Sims]

I would wait a little longer for more replies, but I like where this is going.  Tom states matter-of-factly, "...if the golfers cannot control themselves in choosing what tees to play from, architects cannot do it for them!"  Jeff goes on, "the bigger joke is expecting designers to situate tees so players can have similar irons in." 

These two statements really carry some weight coming from a lifelong architect and a lifelong pro.  Making the assumption that we can combine them into one coherent opinion on proper golf course lengths, what is the answer for fun vs. challenge? 

I think golf courses need staying power.  Staying power comes in the form of more fun and not over-challenging golfers  too many times a round (unless the course is designed specifically for professional events of course).  But golfers in general are a fickle lot.  They'll whine about a course being too hard one minute, but never move up a tee box to better suit their game.  Is the conspicuous consumption idea behind length killing the idea of fun golf?  How should architects resolve these two conflicting ideals?  Can they?

[Mark Saltzman]

What happens if just lie to folders about the actual yardage?

From experience, as long as golfers think they are playing x yardage, they're happy. The fact that the yardage is measured from 3 steps behind the back of the tee box and the course actually plays 200 yards shorter than the card doesn't bother them.

When tees on a given hole are moved up a box (famous holes aside), how often do golfers happily accept the shorter yardage? Always?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I have no problem with a 475 yard par 4.5,  which might well be found on a well designed 6000 yard course.  I do have a problem with an inordinate number of 400-425 yard par 4s.  This is a grind for the shorter hitter but doesn't really challenge the big guns.

Jud,

I think "balance" is the answer.

AND, I think alot depends upon which challenge you choose to meet.

If a course has 3 or 4 sets of tees, one look at the scorecard can tell you if it's equal to, below or above your ability.
While scorecards don't tell the entire story, they're a good indication when it comes to yardage.

I won't play 7,600 courses anymore because it's too long for me.
And I don't want to play 6,400 courses because I don't think they challenge me sufficiently, so, somewhere between 6,500 and 6,900 seems about right, conditions permitting.

[Sean_A]

Ben

In truth, for many guys on this site who play in GB&I, length is varying factor simply because of weather and season.  Sometimes courses play short, but often times courses play quite long compared to the card.  Guys who only play decent weather golf away from winter and shoulder periods may have a totally different take on the issue.  I personally like courses to reflect the weather and seasons - they are ever changing.  Perhaps that is why I have never had an issue playing 5800-6300 yards. My course off the yellows is 6400 (a bit long for me) and it can play brutally long in the winter - when qualifying comps are still being played every week.  Catch the right wind in summer before the rough grows and the course will be surprisingly short. 

Ciao