[Charlie Gallagher]

    I want to go back to a tangent point that Tom Doak included that needs more emphasis in design, shared fairways. Forget the liability angle for a moment, it seems to me that shared fairways promote agronomic efficiency and enhanced strategy. I'd like to see more incorporation of the double fairway concept in future design. That doesn't mean an over abundance of the idea, but some incorporation and featuring here and there where the terrian allows for it.
   I think the same thing about double greens. They enhance interest, and I would think maintenance efficiency, except they must necessarily be larger in overall size than two seperated greens.
   I realize this is off Mac's topic, but Tom raised a thought about it and I wanted to see if others were interested in examining it. 
   And boy, do I agree about drainage, or lack there of being a sin of poor construction.

[Tom_Doak]

I read the list and wanted to say out loud, 'DUH!'  Darius has written a timely and effective article.  But this topic deserves more than magazine articles and blog posts.  This topic deserves hard air time, it deserves a book to two by guys named Nicklaus and Reilly and Feinstein. 

It's one thing for Oliver, Kostis, and Tom to write snippets about slow play, unsustainable maintenance, and bigness.  It's awesome that there are important people that get the issues facing golf courses.  But it's entirely another for the golf complex as a whole to recognize why these issues are important.  I'm not convinced that enough golfers care.  And in any business, unless the market drives changes, the service providers and businesses in that field won't be forced to change.  What's going to force everyone to really notice the things on Darius' list?

I used to say years ago (with dark humor) that things would only change as the result of a Depression ... but here we've had a Golf Depression and many people still refuse to change!

I think we need to see some high-profile, radical courses that are only 6400 yards and address sustainability issues more directly.  I'm looking for a client who will let me do it, but as you know, there aren't too many new courses under consideration in the U.S., period.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think we need to see some high-profile, radical courses that are only 6400 yards and address sustainability issues more directly. 

This is the perfect sentence and should be a repeated mantra until it actually starts to happen. The sustainability bit especially.

[jeffwarne]

I think we need to see some high-profile, radical courses that are only 6400 yards and address sustainability issues more directly. 

This is the perfect sentence and should be a repeated mantra until it actually starts to happen. The sustainability bit especially.

Obligatory thread jack-sorry.
That's putting the cart before the horse.
When were there many 6400 yard high profile golf courses?
When an expert drove the ball 225-260 yards

Which is why I'm so disappointed with the USGA tilting at windmills rather than adressing a problem which is EXACTLY what drives the bus.
Their lack of awareness of the effect of hot balls and equipment on sustainability is shocking and embarrassing.
It doesn't matter that 95% of the golf world drives it 225 or less.
Acceptance is driven by better players, and developers know it(wherther they're right or not).
You can roll back the ball or you can change an entire culture (which isn't happeneing)
(or I guess you can go after twitchy putters and make me change virtually grooveless 30 year old wedges every time I play in a USGA qualifying event )

Now back to your regulaly scheduled program.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

No need to apologize for your thread-jack; you are saying something that needs to be said.

BUT, there are several high-profile 6400-yard courses in the UK that are still doing just fine.  They just can't host big tournaments, so they are off the radar of Americans.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jeff,

People pay massive lip-service to sustainability.... If you look for the answer solely in rolling the ball back then you are on to a loser straight away.... When I see what sometimes passes for "low-budget" in the US, I cringe...

And some of your favourite GB&I courses are only 6,400 yards... And you're a fairly handy golfer...

[Tim_Weiman]

PPallotta,

You are correct. People can play whichever tees they want, but the man who really doesn't need to play more than 6,200 yards still has to pay the green fee to cover maintenance costs for a small minority that needs 7,500 yards.

 Bigness is a bad thing that does nothing more than add cost to the game.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - I don't like or think anyone actually needs a 7500 yard course, and I can probably agree with the 'essence' of the article and with most of what others have said here; but I think too many of us and much too often fall back/rely on conventional wisdom and consensus opinion when it comes to the 'sins' we don't like, and sometimes I feel like challenging that. For example, at JN's Muirfield this week, we have a 7,300 yard course, plus room for a huge driving range and practice area, plus room for specators and spectator mounds and corporate tents, all on about 220 acres. Now, 220 acres doesn't sound like a huge amount of land for any modern golf course, no matter who designed it or where it is. (In fact -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- by today's standards and by the standards of some of the modern greats, it's actually on the low side, acreage wise, especially considering all its extra 'tournament' needs). And when it comes to maintenance, I simply don't know how much putting tees back so that the golfer has to carry 200 yards of rough to reach the fairway instead of just 150 or 100 adds to the time and money involved. Again, I'm not so much disagreeing with the article as trying to point out some of the nuances in the debate, and some of the conventional wisdom that I'm not sure holds water (e.g. longer golf coruses use up a lot more land and cost more to maintain), and some of the ways in which we ourselves cause the problem by demanding 'greatness' at every turn.  

Peter

[Carl Rogers]

...
1.  Fatness
2.  Separateness
3.  Messiness
4.  Bigness
5.  Sameness
6.  Flatness
7.  Vagueness
...

Royal Melbourne, at least from what I have read or seen, has at lot "Bigness", doesn't it?  or width?  or a lot of turf to maintain?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim - I don't like or think anyone actually needs a 7500 yard course, and I can probably agree with the 'essence' of the article and with most of what others have said here; but I think too many of us and much too often fall back/rely on conventional wisdom and consensus opinion when it comes to the 'sins' we don't like, and sometimes I feel like challenging that. For example, at JN's Muirfield this week, we have a 7,300 yard course, plus room for a huge driving range and practice area, plus room for specators and spectator mounds and corporate tents, all on about 220 acres. Now, 220 acres doesn't sound like a huge amount of land for any modern golf course, no matter who designed it or where it is. (In fact -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- by today's standards and by the standards of some of the modern greats, it's actually on the low side, acreage wise, especially considering all its extra 'tournament' needs). And when it comes to maintenance, I simply don't know how much putting tees back so that the golfer has to carry 200 yards of rough to reach the fairway instead of just 150 or 100 adds to the time and money involved. Again, I'm not so much disagreeing with the article as trying to point out some of the nuances in the debate, and some of the conventional wisdom that I'm not sure holds water (e.g. longer golf coruses use up a lot more land and cost more to maintain), and some of the ways in which we ourselves cause the problem by demanding 'greatness' at every turn.  

Peter

Peter,

I understand you tackling conventional wisdom but I think this is the wrong battle. There is no question longer and generally bigger scale courses add to land needed and add to the time it takes to play the game. If the course was essentially designed as a smaller course and then just “found” extra land to throw in a few back tees then that is a little different but it is certainly not the trend in recent years. Courses have just been designed bigger.

That’s not to say we don’t need long courses – we do… But if one says that 5% of golfers now and then need 7,000 yards for a length challenge, then why have we built so many courses of that length in the last 25 years? The average length of a new build should have been much less. And it’s not just about length. Modern safety requirements have required far more width between hole corridors. This all adds up to more space, more time and more cost.

For me, 220 acres is a lot of land by any standard for an 18 hole course. But it is required to hold a big championship. Rather obviously, the only “big” scale courses in GB&I pre-1970 were the ones used to hold the big championships. The vast majority of courses were much smaller in scale and that’s why we haven’t seen many of our favourites hold The Open. But fortunately, those on this website recognise courses like North Berwick, Cruden Bay et al as great, fun-giving golf courses that are the equal of many of the big venues. It’s just unfortunate that the general public get star-struck by the pro’s…

Ally

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()