Did modern design play into the hands of the distance issue ?

[Jason Topp]

I also think formulaic design leads to the need for multiple tee boxes - which does not work well because groups of people tend to want to play from the same tee boxes.  For that reason, I think playing the course from the "wrong" set of tees is a decent way to judge its quality.

[Ed Brzezowski]

Interesting that a fair amount of courses are now re installing the bunkers that Tillie removed. Maybe the ODG were right from the beginning?

[Mark Pavy]

Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver.  Not one of them thinks like Hogan.

Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.

[Tom_Doak]

Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver.  Not one of them thinks like Hogan.

Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.

Mark:

It's easy to decide against driver if there are multiple bunkers you're scared of, or a sharp dogleg with trouble going through it, or if the hole is short and you want to hit a full pitch for your approach.  However, Hogan would lay back to a flatter spot for his second shot even if it meant hitting 4-iron home from there ... the last Tour pro I saw do the same thing was Nick Faldo.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver.  Not one of them thinks like Hogan.

Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.

Mark:

It's easy to decide against driver if there are multiple bunkers you're scared of, or a sharp dogleg with trouble going through it, or if the hole is short and you want to hit a full pitch for your approach.  However, Hogan would lay back to a flatter spot for his second shot even if it meant hitting 4-iron home from there ... the last Tour pro I saw do the same thing was Nick Faldo.

Dave Pelz's data analysis revealed that increased distance is directly proportional to lower scores.

Yes there are other factors to consider, but that was the general conclusion.

[Sean_A]

Most top golfers today think your Optimum Landing Zone is as far out there as they can hit the driver.  Not one of them thinks like Hogan.

Tom, you know that's not true. I've only played one of your course designs (multiple times with groups), Barnbougle Dunes. All the golfers worked out very quickly not to take driver on 3,4,9 (from the forward tees)12 and 15.

Mark:

It's easy to decide against driver if there are multiple bunkers you're scared of, or a sharp dogleg with trouble going through it, or if the hole is short and you want to hit a full pitch for your approach.  However, Hogan would lay back to a flatter spot for his second shot even if it meant hitting 4-iron home from there ... the last Tour pro I saw do the same thing was Nick Faldo.

Dave Pelz's data analysis revealed that increased distance is directly proportional to lower scores.

Yes there are other factors to consider, but that was the general conclusion.

For pro golfers?  Its time to start thinking of golf and design in terms of the handicap pleyer.  Referencing what pros do is about as useful as a hole in the head. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

As much as we'd like to dismiss them, they will remain an enormous factor as long as the PGA Tour is on TV every week.

[Joe Hancock]

Sean,

As much as we'd like to dismiss them, they will remain an enormous factor as long as the PGA Tour is on TV every week.

Nor does it make conforming to their game the right thing to do.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

As much as we'd like to dismiss them, they will remain an enormous factor as long as the PGA Tour is on TV every week.

Nor does it make conforming to their game the right thing to do.

Joe,

But that's what every golfer aspires to, to play like the Pros.

It may not be what we view as good for the game, but, 99.9 % of golfers want to hit it longer.

There's an interesting phenomenon with golf.

If the US Open or the PGA comes to a course, every golfer in the land now wants to play that course.
And, they want to play it from where the PGA Tour Pros play it.

Even Shivas admitted that if he got the chance to play ANGC, that he'd play from the Masters tees, about 7,600 yards.

I know that 7,600 is well beyond my comfort level, but, I understand his desire to play a course he's seen on TV every year for decades.
And, he's subconsciously or even consciously hoping, that he'll hit a shot that's the envy of a PGA Tour Pro.
All of us have that Walter Mitty inside of us when it comes to golf


Golfers are a nutty bunch.
Inherently, we think we're better than we really are.
We try heroic shots, shots far beyond our ability, and every now and then, we pull one off and that fuels our insanity and makes us try even more heroic shots.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Saw on Golf Digest Stix (whatever that is, just got an email) that in a field test of 170,000 golfers (or rounds, not sure which), those who shot 75-80 only averaged 235 yards off the tee, and those who shot 85-90 averaged only 196 yards.  And the 80 max shooters only hit the green 48% of the time, the 90 shooters 27%.  And, I recently learned that the typical (if there is such a thing) woman hits it 150 yards max, but then only 40% of the time.

To be honest, I would associate most 75 shooters with 260 yards, and most 90 shooters with 235.  I guess Tee It Forward has the right idea.  But those stats show the real distance problem in golf - the guys who pay the bills sure need more of it to cope with today's course length, which is far too influenced by discussions like this one.

I agree with Pat that too many golfers want to play too far back, and that may be even more true when they play a famous course, although I have never been tempted to tackle all 7000+ yards of any course.  To me, the back tees are merely a rumor.....

I have always felt that the only issue is to come up with some new term above "championship course" for true tournament courses, and then forget 7000+ tees on all but those 50-200 courses.  I say new term, because I don't think existing courses want to get downgraded in terminology to "recreational course" or some such.  Maybe we only need to call true championship courses, i.e., one that actually hold a tournament, to Platinum Level Championship Courses, and anything up to 6800 can be called Gold, or some such.  That still denotes a proper and good level of challenge.

In any case, its amazing just how much form doesn't follow function in golf course design.

[Ian Andrew]

I met with a gentlemen, when I first went out on my own, about building a public course for him. His plans, by another architect,  were for the typical 7200+ yard layout crammed into a small site. It did not work and even he knew it.

I explained to him that  vast majority of his rounds would be played closer to 6000 yards and that the people playing the back tees either don't pay for golf or are going to slow your average round time by half an hour. That his project would be ideal around 6400 where everything fit fine and the landscape wouldn't have to be transformed to make it fit.

He said it all made sense, but he wasn't going to change his plans because he couldn't market a 6400 yard course. Most developers are not golfers and they tend to do what everyone else does to play it safe. The only time a development breaks stride is when the developer understands that a great experience has nothing to do with a total number on a card.

In my experiences, distance has been in reaction to being embarrassed. Architects aren't the ones being embarrassed, its clubs and organizations that feel that way. Perhaps some modern architects have tried to get ahead of the curve, but most react to the pressure coming from the people who employ them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

It's a sad truth.

For whatever the reason, golfers today, want to claim that they play a devilishlly difficult, long course.

The fact is that they rarely play it, but instead, want to reference it, like the "Red Badge of Courage"

A Difficult course, somewhere along the line, replaced a quality course, and I think TV and the PGA Tour played a major role in that transition.

Jeff,

For whatever the reason, for a period of time, maybe still today, mid to short courses are often looked upon with disdain.

They're looked upon as being too easy.

Easy for whom is the real question.

Certainly not for the members.

The problem is ........................ outsiders or good young golfers who bomb the ball a mile.
Golfers who can ignore all of the architectural features that the members have to deal with.

Enter the distance race and lengthening holes, stage left.

[Tony Ristola]

When you look at courses like Pine Valley and NGLA there seems to be a randomness in the hazards that acts to thwart distance.

Be it cross bunkers, doglegs, bunkers or other architectural features.

In the 50's and 60's it seemed like RTJ and even Dick Wilson crafted their designs on a more regimented basis.

Hazards were less random and more fixed in the DZ.

And, like the Maginot Line, those hazard became obsolete when metal woods and the ball created a quantum leap in distance.

Yet, features like the cross bunkering on # 5 at NGLA and # 7 at PV thwarted distance.
The random nature of the bunkers at NGLA, which to some appeared irrelevant and out of play, suddenly took on added significance as distance off the tee increased.

In some cases, at both courses, increased distance became an impediment to scoring, such as on # 3 at NGLA and # 1 at PV.

I won't use the term "formulaic" for design in the 50's and 60's, rather the term "predictable"

There seems to be a better understanding of "randomness" with regard to hazards today, and that understanding seems to have a purpose.

Has architecture returned to it's roots, back toward "randomness" ?

There is a better understanding of "randomness" here at GCA and among a small group of architects... that it serves to keep a course interesting for more golfers under changing conditions of equipment and soil/weather conditions, but if you look at what is being built, it's not so prevalent.

Reading an article about Weiskopf's redo of TPC Scottsdale, it was all about a New Maginot Line.

[Brent Hutto]

There is no point of diminishing returns for being able to hit the ball longer. Not for elite players and not in the long term. That is because every increase in ability to hit the ball longer is answered by a lengthening of the playing field and the moving of tee-shot hazards farther and farther from the back tees.

In a counter-factual reality in which clubs, developers and tournament organizers adopting Sean Arble position of basically responding to longer hitters with the attitude "So what they hit it longer. Let 'em have at it" there would eventually be a point of diminishing (scoring) returns. We see that on so many tournament or major championship venues where the top players are hitting very few drivers, maybe a 3-wood or two and a whole bunch of 3-irons and such off the tee of Par 4 and Par 5 holes. Why do they do this? Because once you can hit an iron 260 yards there is very, very little return on hitting it 330 with a driver.

All that is a very interesting dynamic. But I see no support whatsoever, much less any groundswell of support, for the proposition that a good course ought to just stand pat and let the very best players attempt to 3-iron it into submission if they can. Instead, the social norm is that my course has to be long enough to induce the longest hitters to use driver on every hole and to hit 3-woods into at least one or two of the Par 5's. So I lengthen my course, temporarily keep up my Maginot Line pretensions and a couple decades hence I do it all over again when every college team has a couple of stud players who can hit it 20 yards past where Rory hits it today.