[Andrew Buck]

I wanted to start a new thread to discuss length on golf courses around several points in the Ran's challenge thread.  I didn't want to discuss in that thread, so that could remain as a list of the best courses under 6,500 yards.  I think that list is a fun project, much like taking architect's individual top 10 courses they've seen and turning it into a top 100, even if it doesn't answer the question some want to have answered.  Since I'm new here, and not as schooled on GCA as many, please forgive and correct me if I make some incorrect assumptions.  

1)  I personally would be more interested in a list of the greatest courses that should be walked by a 4-ball in under 3:45.  Of course this is much more arbitrary and hard to define than yardage on a scorecard.  Overall, the thing that should be promoted, imo, is courses that people can walk, aren't extended without dangerous tee placement, and aren't overly wasteful on resources.

2)  I see some offer critical opinions on "long" courses for several reasons.  The common charge seems to be they are too hard for 90% of golfers, and as such are wasteful of resources and less fun.  The other charge is they take longer to walk.  If we are going to aim these criticism's at current course designers, shouldn't the same criticisms be laid at Raynor, Macdonald, Mackenzie, Ross and others who built 6,200 - 6,500 yard courses in the first 30 years of the last century?  After all, the golf ball travels about 25% farther now, but those courses were only 15% shorter than the "long" courses designed today.  The best golfers had a harder time shooting par in that era, and to the best of my knowledge many courses didn't have members tee's, meaning Average Joe was playing from the same place.  Wasn't that every bit as wasteful and contrary to the "fun" of not providing too stern of a challenge?

3)  I couldn't help but notice Tom Doak endorsing the 6,500 limit, and even lamenting that Cypress Point and Crystal Downs at some point pushed slightly past that limit.  While i haven't had the fortune to play either of those courses, the best I can tell is they found 4 or 5 holes, much like Shoreacre's, where they could add tee boxes within the framework to make holes play similar to the way they were originally designed, even for a 10 handicap.  One *could* argue, adding a 510 yard tee box on a 470 yard hole is a "restoration" of the original design of the hole (as long as the space is there).  In these cases, where clubs clearly aren't just finding every yard for a pro event, why the objection?

4)  I agree that there are some amazing short courses around the world, many of which can still provide ample challenge to all but the very best golfers in the world.  However, the reality is 90% of golfers don't have the luxury of playing their everyday golf on these amazing designs.  I understand, this board exists to discuss "great" architecture, but I'm curious if opinions are the same when discussing the good, but not great club course.  I can see the view that altering NGLA, Cypress Point or similar are altering art and history, but if a long established club can go from 6,300 to 6,600 yards by adding a few back tees without altering the ability to walk the course, shouldn't they consider it.  This still may not use *every* club in a better players hands, but it may reduce the stream of Driver - SW holes.  It also may help better junior golfers face some challenges.  

5)  For the architects on the board, I'm curious if anyone has built sub 6,500 yard courses in the last 30 years?  If not, is this entirely client driven?  I know I've played a 6,700 yard Dye course in rural Indiana, but I can't think of many other courses that didn't at least challenge 7,000 yards.

6)  Also, I think I'd like to applaud the courses that have extended yardage sensibly, without compromising the ability to walk a course, or the enjoyment from the member's tees.  Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing a course through the eyes of a high handicap player, so what I may feel is "playable" may not be.  For example, if I contrast the work done on both courses at Olympia Fields vs the work done on Dubsdred, I want to heap praise on Olympia fields.  I feel like they've presented as much challenge as necessary on both courses, without making the courses too severe from the white tees (particularly the South).  In contrast, I felt like Cog Hill made their course almost unplayable for a 15+ from any set of tees.  

7)  Strictly from a challenge/yardage ratio, Par seems to be the biggest influence.  A par 70 course like Crystal Downs at just over 6,500 is going to play like a 7,000 yard par 72 and be just as hard to par.  It is odd that the public has tied their minds so strongly with par 72, especially since "major" golf has almost exclusively migrated to par 70 (although they are calling 4 - 5 "par 5's", "par 4's" on their scorecards.  

Thanks for humoring my rant.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew,

I think one of the dilemmas faced by architects and developers, and it's a major dilemma, is:
"Market Demand"

For a number of decades "difficulty" became a major asset in evaluating a golf course.
In fact, "resistance to scoring" was one of the rating categories for one of the magazines.

The second dilemma is shoehorning yourself into a "one size fits all" golf course.

I play with a broad spectrum of golfers, from 85 year olds to 14 year olds, and I don't believe that confining play for that broad spectrum, to a 6,500 yard course, or less, is in the best interest of "golf".

I think one of the beauties and great assets of golf is the diversity in the field of play.
A golf course is like no other field of play, it's not confined to predetermined or limited dimensions.
It varies from course to course and it even varies day to day and even on the same day.

In addition, you can't shrink the field of play while at the same time expanding the distance the ball travels, that's a formula for obsolescence resulting in the diminishment of the challenge and interest in the game.

With respect to "playing it forward", on some courses, I don't want to play it forward, I want to play the back tees.
On other courses, such as WFW, I don't want to play the back tees.
I want to be able to make a choice based upon my abilities and the challenge presented by each set of tees.
I can still play well at NGLA and GCGC from the back tees.
I can NOT play well at WFW, BPB and Shinnecock from the back tees, but, I don't want to play those courses from the front tees at less than 6,500 yards.

As one ages, 6,500 and less becomes attractive, but to a growing 15 year old wanting to improve his game, he needs more than a 6,500 yard challenge.

Distance is king in golf and especially competitive golf, hence those whose golfing future is ahead of them need the element of distance in the challenge presented, and that usually doesn't happen on courses where distance is capped under 6,500.

[Andrew Buck]

I think one of the beauties and great assets of golf is the diversity in the field of play.
A golf course is like no other field of play, it's not confined to predetermined or limited dimensions.
It varies from course to course and it even varies day to day and even on the same day.

In addition, you can't shrink the field of play while at the same time expanding the distance the ball travels, that's a formula for obsolescence resulting in the diminishment of the challenge and interest in the game.

Patrick, 

I agree completely like this.  There is no doubt the course I walked at 5:00AM this morning played both longer and easier in 75 degree weather with dew on the fairways and soft greens than it would right now in 90 degree heat and much firmer.   Variety is certainly one of the greatest assets of the game.

On the ball, I don't think you can find anyone, except maybe golf ball manufacturers, who don't think the distance has to stop here.

[Ronald Montesano]

On the ball, I don't think you can find anyone, except maybe golf ball manufacturers, who don't think the distance has to stop here.

Sure you can. They lurk on other sites, is all. The vast majority of golfers do want more distance, especially as golfers age and begin to lose distance. It has nothing to do with preservation of the game, but with preservation of self as self once was.

[Jason Topp]

Great topic and thoughts.  I will need to spend some time thinking about my reactions.

[Andrew Buck]

On the ball, I don't think you can find anyone, except maybe golf ball manufacturers, who don't think the distance has to stop here.

Sure you can. They lurk on other sites, is all. The vast majority of golfers do want more distance, especially as golfers age and begin to lose distance. It has nothing to do with preservation of the game, but with preservation of self as self once was.

hmm ... must be baby boomers    

It is interesting that an entire generation really never had to experience losing distance because of equipment changes.  My dad and his friends, 20 years my senior, started seeing the huge changes in equipment when they were around 40, which meant they pretty much have played for 40 years (from 20 - 60) hitting the ball the same distance (as strength loss was offset by equipment).  I understand the desire to continue to maintain, as 40 is in sights and a few yards start to slip away, but thus is life.

[Tom_Doak]

3)  I couldn't help but notice Tom Doak endorsing the 6,500 limit, and even lamenting that Cypress Point and Crystal Downs at some point pushed slightly past that limit.  While i haven't had the fortune to play either of those courses, the best I can tell is they found 4 or 5 holes, much like Shoreacre's, where they could add tee boxes within the framework to make holes play similar to the way they were originally designed, even for a 10 handicap.  One *could* argue, adding a 510 yard tee box on a 470 yard hole is a "restoration" of the original design of the hole (as long as the space is there).  In these cases, where clubs clearly aren't just finding every yard for a pro event, why the objection?

4)  I agree that there are some amazing short courses around the world, many of which can still provide ample challenge to all but the very best golfers in the world.  However, the reality is 90% of golfers don't have the luxury of playing their everyday golf on these amazing designs.  I understand, this board exists to discuss "great" architecture, but I'm curious if opinions are the same when discussing the good, but not great club course.  I can see the view that altering NGLA, Cypress Point or similar are altering art and history, but if a long established club can go from 6,300 to 6,600 yards by adding a few back tees without altering the ability to walk the course, shouldn't they consider it.  This still may not use *every* club in a better players hands, but it may reduce the stream of Driver - SW holes.  It also may help better junior golfers face some challenges.  

Andrew:

I understand the decisions of those clubs to add a few back tees.  I've even helped some other clubs do the same, and I don't have a problem with doing so, as long as it doesn't disturb the course that's always been there for the members who don't play the back tees.

My problem is, where do you stop?  If it's okay to add a few back tees to get to 6600 or 6700 yards, then why don't you just add a whole set of back tees to get to 7000?  To me, what's lost in the process is the very notion that you can build a short course which is plenty challenging enough for good players and still playable for the members from those same tees.  Merion and Cypress Point and Crystal Downs used to demonstrate that, in spades, but Merion has now gone to the dark side, and I hate to think the others are starting down that path, even incrementally.

To answer your question, the shortest courses I've ever built are 6600 or 6700 yards ... those include Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle, and St. Andrews Beach [the last of them a par 70].  I would love to build a course under 6500 from the tips, and indeed I will try to convince a new client to consider doing so this coming weekend ... but I suspect he will ask me to go a bit longer, just like everyone else does.

By the way, I think your "equation" in  your point #7 is wrong.  I always figured that to comparably add a stroke to par, you had to add about 150 yards to a course ... the difference of changing a 380-yard par 4 to a 530-yard par 5  [or a 230-yard par 3].  So a 6500-yard par-70 is more like a 6800-yard par-72.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom,
How long can the new course at Dismal play from the tips? Did Chris have an idea of how long he wanted it to play?

[Colin Macqueen]

Ron Mo,

"The vast majority of golfers do want more distance, especially as golfers age and begin to lose distance."

In my experience the above does not hold water. In my cohort of "babyboomers" or aged golfer here in Oz as we have gotten older we have not been looking for more distance as that generally means deeper into trouble. What a lot of my mates have been looking for is trying to get purity of strike.

Hit the sweet spot and let the distance take care of itself. As we have gotten shorter swings we can make up the distance, easily actually, with tempo,better balance and smooth swinging. Easier said than done but as testosterone levels dwindle so does the desire to have hot balls….so to speak!

Cheers Colin

[Andrew Buck]

By the way, I think your "equation" in  your point #7 is wrong.  I always figured that to comparably add a stroke to par, you had to add about 150 yards to a course ... the difference of changing a 380-yard par 4 to a 530-yard par 5  [or a 230-yard par 3].  So a 6500-yard par-70 is more like a 6800-yard par-72.

Tom,

Thanks for the reply.

I guess my mind was thinking about achieving the lower par by excluding par 4's in favor less stout par 3's (so my mind was thinking swap 425 for 175), but in reality your numbers are probably a better reflection on most courses.  Of the two courses I play regularly, the par 71 is about 250 yards shorter than the par 72, achieved by an extra par 3.  They "play" about the same difficulty to par for me.  I would think for a scratch golfer, going from a 380-yard par 4 to a 530-yard par five doesn't add a *full* shot, nor does foregoing it for a long par three reduce a *full" shot in terms of difficulty.  

Basically, if you want to take a 380 yard par 4, and create a par three of the same difficulty to par, it likely couldn't play longer than 175 (and probably shorter depending on how much trouble is on each hole).  If you want to create a par 5 with the same level of difficulty to par, I would think it would need to be at minimum 565, once again depending on many other factors.  

My problem is, where do you stop?  If it's okay to add a few back tees to get to 6600 or 6700 yards, then why don't you just add a whole set of back tees to get to 7000?  To me, what's lost in the process is the very notion that you can build a short course which is plenty challenging enough for good players and still playable for the members from those same tees.

This makes sense.  I will say I find it amusing when people talk about finding ways to make a course much harder when there are 3 guys at a club that ever break 70, and that's far from an regular event. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
How long can the new course at Dismal play from the tips? Did Chris have an idea of how long he wanted it to play?

Keith:

I think it can be stretched to 7000 yards or perhaps a bit more than that if you push the margins ... as at Ballyneal, there is so much short grass from green to tee that there is latitude on many holes to tee off from places I really didn't plan on.

But, that's 7000 yards at 3500 feet elevation, with a lot of roll in the fairways.  I think the ultimate impression will be that the course plays more like a 6500-yard course, but it may be next summer before that's apparent.

Chris was not concerned when I told him I thought it would play pretty short.  That's a much easier sell to a client when they already have one course where the back tees are too long.  The 7300-yard back tees at Bandon Dunes were what allowed me to build Pacific Dunes at 6700.

[Jud_T]

Andrew,

The other point you didn't mention is that all things being equal a 5-10% increase in length equates to a commensurate increase in time, money and water.  Nobody wants to deny the 10% who need 7,000 to have their bag fully challenged a proper test, but the reality is inside out:  90% of courses have been stretched to appease the 10% and the wannabes.

[Andrew Buck]

Andrew,

The other point you didn't mention is that all things being equal a 5-10% increase in length equates to a commensurate increase in time, money and water.  Nobody wants to deny the 10% who need 7,000 to have their bag fully challenged a proper test, but the reality is inside out:  90% of courses have been stretched to appease the 10% and the wannabes.

I did mention this briefly, but it is a fair point and really gets back to three items. 

1)  Can additional tees be added in a manner that do not add significant cost?  I think the answer is yes in some cases, but not all.  One course I play has simple round "championship" tee boxes (about 6,900), which is all that is needed for the 10%.  There is certainly some maintenance cost with these, but it really is minimal, no more than 3 labor hours a week (and no more than the ladies tees that are used by 10% of traffic).  In addition, I am certain that they haven't added any other fairway area or green space than they would have if they only had the "blue" set at 6,500.

2)  Can the additional tees fit into a course as to not slow play (or create unreasonable walks for non-championship players).  Since a co-worker and I walked 18 holes from the back tees at a leisurely in 2:30 carrying our own bags this morning, I don't think it's an issue if done right. 

3)  Being consistent, do you hold the same criticisms of early architects who stretched things beyond what was needed for the 90% in their works (or early century revisions) at The National, Cypress and others?

[Jud_T]

1) You're assuming that 500 yards is readily available and already owned by the club.  This isn't an issue for the ladies tees.

2)  If you walked 7,000 yards in 2:30, then you'd be able to walk 6,500 yards in 2:19:29.

3)  While it sounds nice in theory that little additional maintenance is needed for back boxes, will the membership be comfy with an area "in play" that is substandard to the rest of the course?

4)  As for the golden aged archies, many played matches and the bogie golfer was a more accepted concept.  They also didn't have nearly the maintenance costs we have today with regard to irrigation, advanced agronomy, rough etc.  Plus real estate was often in a less densely populated area than it is today in terms of relative costs.

[Andrew Buck]

1) You're assuming that 500 yards is readily available and already owned by the club.  This isn't an issue for the ladies tees.

2)  If you walked 7,000 yards in 2:30, then you'd be able to walk 6,500 yards in 2:19:29.

3)  While it sounds nice in theory that little additional maintenance is needed for back boxes, will the membership be comfy with an area "in play" that is sustandard to the rest of the course?

4)  As for the golden aged archies, many played matches and the bogie golfer was a more accepted concept.  They also didn't have nearly the maintenance costs we have today with regard to irrigation, advanced agronomy, rough etc.  Plus real estate was often in a less densely populated area than it is today in terms of relative costs.

1)  I am not advising adding (or building) length where it isn't available, nor suggesting it is impossible to have a good course at 6,500 yards.  This isn't absolute for me.

2) I don't think this is true, at least where I play.  I would guess it adds 2 or 3 minutes, as there are probably 4 - 5 holes where I walk 20 yards out of our way, or past the 6,500 markers.  There are about 10, where it is just a small teeing ground set closer to the previous green or to the side.  Once again, depends on the property and location.

3)  At both clubs I play regularly (one built back tees originally, one has installed 5 - 6) the area around are maintained at the same level anyway.  Once again, this isn't the case everywhere, and it's sight/club specific. 

4)  Fair point, but as I've mentioned, there are clubs that currently can have back tees, or add them without adding to these things, and there are golf courses in rural areas today that don't have land demands.  It's OK for adding or building length to be the wrong move for some clubs, and the right move for others.

[Jud_T]

It's OK for adding or building length to be the wrong move for some clubs, and the right move for others.

The point is that it's apparently been the "right" move for most every club.

[Andrew Buck]

It's OK for adding or building length to be the wrong move for some clubs, and the right move for others.

The point is that it's apparently been the "right" move for most every club.

You are right, it has been with most older clubs.  That said, for "most" established clubs that don't host majors, I don't think it's been done in a way that has caused them to dramatically alter the rest of the course or budget (for maintenance of and around new tees).  Major championship clubs are a different animal.

[John Percival]

It's OK for adding or building length to be the wrong move for some clubs, and the right move for others.

The point is that it's apparently been the "right" move for most every club.

You are right, it has been with most older clubs.  That said, for "most" established clubs that don't host majors, I don't think it's been done in a way that has caused them to dramatically alter the rest of the course or budget (for maintenance of and around new tees).  Major championship clubs are a different animal.

Andrew,
Welcome to the beehive! You've started the buzzin' again.

I agree with you and would like to use an example of the highest regard...Crystal Downs. Had the pleasure about 10 (or so) years ago. Among the many fine holes is the 13th, a 4 par of about 440. The dogleg right hole has the green nestled into a hollow and is framed beautifully. When Dr M designed the hole, it was likely meant as a brawny 4 par. I hit driver - 7 iron. There is ample room for a new, longer tee that would not add 1 second to others' walk, yet would restore the hole's characteristics for certain players to a drive and longish iron. Those playing the regular tees would not be impacted.
 
The interesting thing about the length debate is that a longer hole may provide enough challenge so that fwys would not need pinching, or roughs grown, greens slickened, or ponds added  . Now, those factors WOULD adversely affect everyone's play and usually result in slower rounds and less enjoyment.

[Mark Steffey]

7)  Strictly from a challenge/yardage ratio, Par seems to be the biggest influence.  A par 70 course like Crystal Downs at just over 6,500 is going to play like a 7,000 yard par 72 and be just as hard to par.  It is odd that the public has tied their minds so strongly with par 72, especially since "major" golf has almost exclusively migrated to par 70 (although they are calling 4 - 5 "par 5's", "par 4's" on their scorecards.  

Thanks for humoring my rant.  

my mind is known to change all the time...  but more than 50% of the time my favorite golf course is wannamoisett.

[Carl Rogers]

Why no discussion of the par 68 course swapping a par 5 for a par 3?  6500 would long enough.

[Tom_Doak]

It's OK for adding or building length to be the wrong move for some clubs, and the right move for others.

The point is that it's apparently been the "right" move for most every club.

You are right, it has been with most older clubs.  That said, for "most" established clubs that don't host majors, I don't think it's been done in a way that has caused them to dramatically alter the rest of the course or budget (for maintenance of and around new tees).  Major championship clubs are a different animal.

Andrew,
Welcome to the beehive! You've started the buzzin' again.

I agree with you and would like to use an example of the highest regard...Crystal Downs. Had the pleasure about 10 (or so) years ago. Among the many fine holes is the 13th, a 4 par of about 440. The dogleg right hole has the green nestled into a hollow and is framed beautifully. When Dr M designed the hole, it was likely meant as a brawny 4 par. I hit driver - 7 iron. There is ample room for a new, longer tee that would not add 1 second to others' walk, yet would restore the hole's characteristics for certain players to a drive and longish iron. Those playing the regular tees would not be impacted.

John Percival:

The funny thing is that the club DID build a far back tee on the 13th at Crystal Downs, a few years ago.  There was no discussion of it amongst the membership that I was aware of, it just appeared one spring.  I first noticed it when playing a casual round with the club professional and with Ian Baker-Finch, who came up to see the course; and I could not help but ask Fred, "Well, if we aren't playing it, who the hell is it for?"

It is there for Fred's son and his school buddies who hit it 320 yards.  But I still can't figure out why we need the tee, since none of the dues-paying members would ever play it, and the kids who do never break par, even if they do hit a wedge into #13 green at 440 yards.

What I don't understand in your rationalization is that we need to restore some par-4's to being a drive and a longish iron.  Those days are over, thanks to the manufacturers and the ruling bodies.  Trying to bring them back through architecture is a waste of time and money.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Your question, "where do you stop ?" is a valid question, probably the ultimate question.  But, it can't be answered without addressing/answering the question of when increased distance will stop.

Lengthening courses has been a defensive reaction to increased distance.

If shaft and ball technology produce 20 more yards, you can't expect the features/courses to remain static.

At some point increased distance has to be reduced to minimal increments.

Part of the problem is that everybody wants to hit the ball longer.
It's an inate component of the golfer's abilities and ego.

What's happened over the last 50 years is that technology has not only allowed golfers of all ages/abilities to hit the ball longer, but, straighter as well.

So, until the answer to your question is provided in the form of "when will increases in distance stop", creating longer courses will continue to be en vogue.

[Sean_A]

I wanted to start a new thread to discuss length on golf courses around several points in the Ran's challenge thread.  I didn't want to discuss in that thread, so that could remain as a list of the best courses under 6,500 yards.  I think that list is a fun project, much like taking architect's individual top 10 courses they've seen and turning it into a top 100, even if it doesn't answer the question some want to have answered.  Since I'm new here, and not as schooled on GCA as many, please forgive and correct me if I make some incorrect assumptions.  

1)  I personally would be more interested in a list of the greatest courses that should be walked by a 4-ball in under 3:45.  Of course this is much more arbitrary and hard to define than yardage on a scorecard.  Overall, the thing that should be promoted, imo, is courses that people can walk, aren't extended without dangerous tee placement, and aren't overly wasteful on resources.

2)  I see some offer critical opinions on "long" courses for several reasons.  The common charge seems to be they are too hard for 90% of golfers, and as such are wasteful of resources and less fun.  The other charge is they take longer to walk.  If we are going to aim these criticism's at current course designers, shouldn't the same criticisms be laid at Raynor, Macdonald, Mackenzie, Ross and others who built 6,200 - 6,500 yard courses in the first 30 years of the last century?  After all, the golf ball travels about 25% farther now, but those courses were only 15% shorter than the "long" courses designed today.  The best golfers had a harder time shooting par in that era, and to the best of my knowledge many courses didn't have members tee's, meaning Average Joe was playing from the same place.  Wasn't that every bit as wasteful and contrary to the "fun" of not providing too stern of a challenge?

3)  I couldn't help but notice Tom Doak endorsing the 6,500 limit, and even lamenting that Cypress Point and Crystal Downs at some point pushed slightly past that limit.  While i haven't had the fortune to play either of those courses, the best I can tell is they found 4 or 5 holes, much like Shoreacre's, where they could add tee boxes within the framework to make holes play similar to the way they were originally designed, even for a 10 handicap.  One *could* argue, adding a 510 yard tee box on a 470 yard hole is a "restoration" of the original design of the hole (as long as the space is there).  In these cases, where clubs clearly aren't just finding every yard for a pro event, why the objection?

4)  I agree that there are some amazing short courses around the world, many of which can still provide ample challenge to all but the very best golfers in the world.  However, the reality is 90% of golfers don't have the luxury of playing their everyday golf on these amazing designs.  I understand, this board exists to discuss "great" architecture, but I'm curious if opinions are the same when discussing the good, but not great club course.  I can see the view that altering NGLA, Cypress Point or similar are altering art and history, but if a long established club can go from 6,300 to 6,600 yards by adding a few back tees without altering the ability to walk the course, shouldn't they consider it.  This still may not use *every* club in a better players hands, but it may reduce the stream of Driver - SW holes.  It also may help better junior golfers face some challenges.  

5)  For the architects on the board, I'm curious if anyone has built sub 6,500 yard courses in the last 30 years?  If not, is this entirely client driven?  I know I've played a 6,700 yard Dye course in rural Indiana, but I can't think of many other courses that didn't at least challenge 7,000 yards.

6)  Also, I think I'd like to applaud the courses that have extended yardage sensibly, without compromising the ability to walk a course, or the enjoyment from the member's tees.  Admittedly, I have a hard time seeing a course through the eyes of a high handicap player, so what I may feel is "playable" may not be.  For example, if I contrast the work done on both courses at Olympia Fields vs the work done on Dubsdred, I want to heap praise on Olympia fields.  I feel like they've presented as much challenge as necessary on both courses, without making the courses too severe from the white tees (particularly the South).  In contrast, I felt like Cog Hill made their course almost unplayable for a 15+ from any set of tees.  

7)  Strictly from a challenge/yardage ratio, Par seems to be the biggest influence.  A par 70 course like Crystal Downs at just over 6,500 is going to play like a 7,000 yard par 72 and be just as hard to par.  It is odd that the public has tied their minds so strongly with par 72, especially since "major" golf has almost exclusively migrated to par 70 (although they are calling 4 - 5 "par 5's", "par 4's" on their scorecards.  

Thanks for humoring my rant.  

2) I think a lot of these old courses by masters were probably too difficult.  I don't see much need to recreate that level of difficulty for a significant percentage of clubs.

3) If the tees inconvenience the the guys who don't mind the extra walk and members want to pay for it - fine.  However, I would be much more in favour of calling that 470 yarder a par 4 rather than adding virtually 40 meaningless yards to keep a number on the card.

4) I don't believe we have to have great architecture under 6500 yards to challenge and interest golfers.  Good design does the job and good design can be created on practically any piece pf land.

7) There are plenty of short courses that will knock scratch players for a loop.  The templates exist, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.  |All we need to do is get golfers to realize that sub par 70 courses can actually play harder to par than par 72s and still feature a lot of tough, long shots.  

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

Your question, "where do you stop ?" is a valid question, probably the ultimate question.  But, it can't be answered without addressing/answering the question of when increased distance will stop.

But, Pat, I have been ASSURED by both the R & A and the USGA that the increase in distance due to equipment has been halted for several years now.

And as I just replied to John Percival, the problem is with some people trying to restore "shot values" [meaning club selection] to holes where it is really impossible to do so.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

A friend of mine was the head of a firm that was looking to change the paint/surface of the golf ball in order to reduce drag, ergo, increase distance.

I'm fairly certain that research is ongoing in the effort to produce shafts that produce greater distance.

I know what the USGA and R&A have stated, but, I wonder if a few years from now, we'll be asking, how did distance increase by another 10 yards over the last few years.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()