How Long a Course would the golden age architects build today?

[Rich Goodale]

I've only skimmed over this thread, but it seems to me that one thing we have missed is the projected skills of the Golden Age archtiects of yesteryear.  Morris, Ross, Park Jr., Braid, Crump, Fownes and maybe Colt and Wilson would be hitting the ball nearly as far as McIlroy does today, whilst MacKenzie (and probably even Macdonald) would be struggling to hit (their) ProV1's past 250.  Raynor would still not have a clue....

And yet, would the people who would be funding their courses, really want to play at a "Championship" length course if they didn't have a hope in hell of hitting its par-4s in two?  In the godlen age the semi-hackers played games not completely dissimilar from the elite players.  Today the average 5-handicap player is outdriven by even a journeyman pro by 50-100 yards and chips and putts even less competitively.  Would they pay a Ross or a Mackenzie to embarras them.  Would a Mackenzie or Macdonald have a clue as to how to design a course for both the elite players and the masses?

[DMoriarty]

But using that for comparison, the stretch of holes you have highlighted in blue have those four holes in the mid-high 200's that don't exist at my club nor at the vast majority of courses nowadays.

It makes me wonder if maybe some of the pre-1960 courses that are still extant might have originally had a bit more variety at the shorter end of the Par 4 length range but over time those seemed to someone the "obvious" holes on which length could be made up to take an old "short" course to modern "championship" length. To my mind, if one wanted to take the hole length distribution you listed and make it 300 yards loner the "obvious" thing to do is add 10-15 yards to those holes in the 200's and add 3x that much to the ones over 350 yards. I do not think many course modernizers have used that line of reasoning.

Brent,  I agree that at some point architects/clubs/courses forgot about the importance of variety and stopped building (and started renovating) such holes.  I think that is one of secrets that make some of the old courses like NGLA and Merion (w/o USGA tees) better than so many new courses.  Those old courses present a true variety of hole lengths.   Some of the newer designers who are seriously looking the past are reconciling this somewhat, but perhaps not enough.

As for ideal lengths for the modern shorter hitter, I think the variety of lengths of the "Regular Course" at NGLA would  still make a very good model:
125  160  185  261  305  311  315  358  376  380  385  405  410  416  456  467  484  525

I have played NGLA with hickories from something around those lengths (maybe a little longer) and it was extremely enjoyable.  I couldn't reach some of the holes in regulation (like the Alps for instance) but the longer holes were designed with this in mind and the layout routes still required thought and execution, and presented exciting shots.   Plus, it doesn't feel like nearly as much of a slog when the longer holes are interspersed with other holes focused on aspects other than distance of the tee.  ________________________________________________________

 

 In the godlen age the semi-hackers played games not completely dissimilar from the elite players.  Today the average 5-handicap player is outdriven by even a journeyman pro by 50-100 yards and chips and putts even less competitively.

This to me is precisely why distance technology presents such a challenge to the architecture.  We don't all fit on the same courses anymore.    The pros and even long hitting amateurs (some of them not even close to scratch) would need 8000+ yards to replicate the experience of the old courses, yet many (most?) don't hit it much further than decent golfers did a century ago.

As an aside, your list of which golden age designers were top notch golfers is probably a little off.  Crump and Wilson were quality club golfers and two of the better Amateurs in Philadelphia for a while, but at the time that wasn't saying much. On the other hand the younger Macdonald was playing matches against Young Tom during his time in St. Andrews, and while he was already out of his prime he was still good enough to win a national championship here against a weak field.

That said, mixing them up probably doesn't matter, since as you say there wasn't such a gap between the best and the rest.

[Rich Goodale]

Dzve

If you check the records, the young CBM very rarely (if ever) broke 90 on the Old Course when he was learning the game in the mid 1870's.  He had a locker close to Old Tom's but he was never in his class as a golfer (except maybe in his own mind....).  MacKenzie rarely completed a round when he was playing R&A competitions (check Neil Crafter's time line).

Always here to help

Rich

[Tom_Doak]

Jason, you note that: "The ideal expressed by the Golden Age architects was to provide an enjoyable challenge for all classes of player."

That's true I think, but therein lies the rub -- for I'd suggest that it's not the courses that have changed so much, it's the players. I have a feeling that what was an "enjoyable challenge" for a range of average golfers in the 1920s and 30s would be the cause of much complaint amongst their modern-day counterparts. To put it another way: I think some/many of the great Golden Age courses would've been flat out hard for the averarge golfer back then, and hard in a way that the average golfer of today would complain about (if they had to play today's truly equivalent versions of those courses).  

Peter

This is what I see, as well.  If it takes an 8,000-yard course to challenge today's golfer, and we all know that golfers love a challenge, then why is there no one building 8,000-yard courses?  [I know that one or two have been built, but they are considered novelties, and nobody ever plays them all the way back except guys trying to prove that they can.]

[DMoriarty]

Rich, by CBM's own account he was shooting between 90-100 in the early part of the 1874, and by the time he left in September he was routinely breaking 90.  If you have records directly contradicting this, I'd love to see them.

While they were mostly matches (some involving Young Tom) the rounds CBM discussed in Scotland's Gift were reported in Field.   The only score listed was an 91 (to Old Tom's 88)  on June 13, 1874.  A 90 at St. Andrews was a damn good score in the mid-1870's.  The winning score from the 1873 Open at TOC was 179 for 36 holes, and the winning score in 1876 was 176.

And he had a decent record in the US as well, especially compared to some others on your list.

[David Harshbarger]

I'd find a course with seven or eight Par 5's a long slog even at that. As for the "boring" part, it takes a lot to make a three-full-shots hole interesting. To make several three-full-shots holes interesting on a single course is a tough ask.

Welcome to the woman's world of golf on too many courses.

[BCrosby]

TD says:

"If it takes an 8,000-yard course to challenge today's golfer, and we all know that golfers love a challenge, then why is there no one building 8,000-yard courses?  [I know that one or two have been built, but they are considered novelties, and nobody ever plays them all the way back except guys trying to prove that they can.]"

But an 8,000 yard course, historical apples to apples, is a 'novelty' if and only if we fail to communicate the fact that it is a course that will play roughly like a 6800 yard course would have played in 1930. That modern length, with its 530 yard par 4's, would work well for modern scratch and pro players. They would be forced to actually hit mid and long iron approaches to par 4's. Heaven forbid.  

For good players that kind of challenge, I would suggest, is intriguing and, if the course is well designed, they will relish it.

For other players forward tees are always an option.

That  no one builds 8000 yard modern courses (to repeat myself - courses that play effectively like a 6800 yard course in 1930) has less to do with the attitudes of the modern average golfer and more to do with the men who pay to build modern golf courses. They don't want to pay the extra costs required to build bigger, longer courses - because the better players who who would most enjoy those courses are not the people who will pay to join the clubs or buy the real estate that underwrites the construction of those courses.

Those sorts of considerations were much less important to a Crump, a CBM or a MacK or Cliff Roberts back in the day. For a variety of reasons.

Needed today is not some magical change in the attitudes of bogey golfers (how would than happen?), but a change in the approach of the men who underwrite the construction of modern golf courses and the architects they hire to build them. That's where the leadership must come from. Otherwise, modern golf courses will continue to be built to appeal to the average, bogey golfer. Good players will continue to hit PW's approaches into the longest par 4's on the course.

Surely, we can do better than that. Moreover, it is not a zero sum issue. We don't have the choose between building courses for bogey golfers and for scratch golfers. Let's build both kinds. Indeed, let's build both kinds of courses over the same 18 holes.

Bob    

[DMoriarty]

Bob,

Your post took me by surprise.  I was thinking this was simply a thought experiment demonstrating just how absurdly long a course would have to be to match the challenge presented in the past for the longest hitters.  I didn't think anyone here was actually looking at this as potentially a good idea.

IMO, while 8000 yard courses might work for the best and longest, they would be a disaster for everyone else, no matter how many extra tees.  I just don't think it is simple as, "For other players forward tees are always an option."  We are talking about over 2000 yards of men's tees! The architecture just doesn't work.  Doglegs don't turn in the right point for everyone, hazards are not in the correct position,  greens don't work for every distance.  It sounds like a recipe for mushy architecture, long rounds, and a very long walk.

[Sean_A]

There isn't merely the added cost yardage brings on.  Think of how many sets of tees an 7000 yard course requires to get people around it.  Now think of how the hazards and features are placed to accommodate all the tees.  I don't think it can be successfully done to the degree a 6500 yards course with half the tees can.  Sure that means one of two things.  Either the best players have to play down to the course - meaning they don't hit driver or the greens have to be quite challenging.  A combination of the two can work fairly well but low scores will be had by scratch players sometimes.  I can't see the issue with that.  

Now, with all the associated issues a 7000 yards course brings on how in the hell is an archie meant to build an 8000 yarder?  Its sheer stupidity.  The longer we make courses the more difficult it is for archies to keep the hazards and features in play for everybody or for interesting features to play key roles in the design.  What ends up happening is sets of hazards and features are built for each tee and that of course means when the shorter hitter hits bad shots he not only has to contend with his set of hazards and features, but also other sets.  Take a good look at a championship course which is stretched to 7300 yards.  It ain't pretty for the guy who hits it 200.  

I think the game is far better served if the top players are ignored in designing courses - plenty banger courses already exist.  I don't think there is any question the longer courses are the least interesting they become for joe blow.  As Brent suggests, if the true scratch player is to be an important consideration in design, its much better to reduce par and keep courses shorter.  

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

For me this is a thought experiment.  The golden age architects complained about driving distance back in the day but there response was to lengthen courses.  I wonder if they would make the same choices in light of the distance increases in the 1998-2004 time frame or would they have gone a different direction?

I am unsure of the answer.  I suspect they would not like to see Tiger Woods keeping his driver in the bag for most tee shots.

[DMoriarty]

Sean,  I agree with everything you wrote except for the proposed solution.   Why not just fix the ball so that the relative distance between long and short is restored to a more sane level, and so we all can fit on the same courses again?  Absent that, your solution is probably best I guess.
_________________________________________

Jason,  I suspect some of the ODGs would take one look at today's drivers compared to their own and wonder what the hell the ruling bodies have been doing over the past 100 years.  Alternatively, some others might hit the clubs and want to get fitted for a complete set.    But one of CBM's greatest worries was that the sporting goods manufacturers were going to take over the game, and he seems to have been omniscient on that one.

As for how they dealt with distance increases in the past, I am not so sure that their response was always to complain about the increased distances.  Some felt that the invention of the Haskell ball was a good thing for golf and may have even saved the game.   Sure, the better players hit it a bit farther, but the revolutionary impact was that it made the game much more accessible for beginners and hacks. They not only got more distance, the Haskell allowed them to actually get the ball in the air more consistently and to not have to worry about breaking so many clubs.  The invention of the Haskell lessened the gap between the scratch and the hack.   This latest round of "improvements" to the ball did the opposite.

[Sean_A]

David

I might agree with you if I could see a reduction on distance actually being a reality. The beauty of my solution is doesn't cost anything but new signs.  Nobody has to sacrifice their huge bats ad hot balls.  


Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Sean,  Probably neither of our solutions a have much of a realistic chance.  On second thought maybe yours has a better chance of becoming a reality for new courses.  But older courses will probably continue to be messed up in the futile attempt to challenge the longest hitters.

[jeffwarne]

Can't every course be played as short as people want it by either using the forward tees or the front of the fairway?
Sadly no, as they need not only a tee, but a certain color tee to justify it.
I'm sure no one would stop anyone if they chose to "tee it (as far) forward" as they want.

[DMoriarty]

Can't every course be played as short as people want it by either using the forward tees or the front of the fairway?
Sadly no, as they need not only a tee, but a certain color tee to justify it.
I'm sure no one would stop anyone if they chose to "tee it (as far) forward" as they want.

Great Idea.  Because nothing creates a quality golf experience more than walking forward a couple of hundred yards with with a golf ball in your pocket, teeing it up in the fairway, and then trying to play the remainder of a golf hole that wasn't designed for anyone near your ability.  

And then doing it again on the next hole.

[jeffwarne]

Can't every course be played as short as people want it by either using the forward tees or the front of the fairway?
Sadly no, as they need not only a tee, but a certain color tee to justify it.
I'm sure no one would stop anyone if they chose to "tee it (as far) forward" as they want.

Great Idea.  Because nothing creates a quality golf experience more than walking forward a couple of hundred yards with with a golf ball in your pocket, teeing it up in the fairway, and then trying to play the remainder of a golf hole that wasn't designed for anyone near your ability.  

And then doing it again on the next hole.

how exactly, other than the obligatory tee markers and often eyesore inducing stupid mini elevation, is playing the most forward tee or the front of the fairway any different than way forward tees being advocated all over this thread?

Sean is suggesting no long back tees for low markers/long hitters (they can't really tee off behind the tees to create a course that suits them)
I'm suggesting people tee off wherever they want, and forward tees and fairways can exist for that purpose.
Are you suggesting Ballyneal and The sheep ranch are poor quality golf experiences because of the lack of tee markers?
Sebonack's tees look like fairways-would they be wrong if the tee markers weren't out?

By the way, I am in agreement though in that I would rather PLAY my way to the next green, then WALK forward to a much shorter tees.even if it meant playing an extra shot.
As a kid we played the men's tees, and no doubt this led to the ability to hit fairway woods and develop a great short game.
Nowadays young kids play 50% of the course, while walking 100%-only a useful idea on a course with forced carries.
Of course these kids won't ever need their fairway woods given the USGA's bastadization of the equipment so I guess it's all good-they might as well start carrying 7 wedges at age 11.

My point is I grow very tired of every member approaching me telling we need a certain new tee on every hole.
Senior tees at the front of the whites, senior tee at the back of the reds, separate senior tee, women's tees,beginning women's tees, junior tees, more back tees, a mid blue/black tee(and that's just 1/10 of the tee suggestions)

Use some freaking imagination and just mix up the tees we have-all 80 of them
I can't tell you how many times I've simply teed off near a green in some rough or fairway to avoid a stupid walk.
Did I feel dumbed down or slighted or deprived of a "quality golf experience"?
No, just the opposite.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  I can't speak for others, but I am not at all advocating for all those way forward tees. 

For what it is worth, I'd prefer golfing than walking up too, even if it meant extra shots.  But with hazards, carries, and a hundred yards or so of tee boxes that isn't even a possibility for many golfers on many courses. 

I sympathize with your plight. The distance disparity between long and short screws everything up for everyone. 

[Jim Nugent]

Here's a 6800 yard course that will give the pro's all they could handle, test every aspect of their game, require them to hit every club in the bag, and still be eminently playable for average golfers.  It is par 70, made up of 8 par 4s, 4 par 5s, and 6 par 3s, whose lengths are as follows:

Par 3s      Par 5s         Par 4s
290          650              510
260          570              480
230          540              450
200          510              440
170                             390
130                             370
                                  320
                                  290

Pro's hit 8 to 10 drivers off the tee, and maybe more.  They have long irons into 8 or so greens.  They face two potentially drivable par 4s; plus a number of holes that for them are half-par, both above and below what the card lists.  

The par 3s make overall scoring hard.  Even the world's best players will average over par on them.  The par 5s include one 3-shot hole, plus three others that can be reached, but only with long irons/woods/hybrids.

Average golfers play from shorter tees, except maybe we turn one or two of the longest par 3s into par 4s for them.  

I made this suggestion several times before, and got zero response to it, so maybe I'm like Don Quixote, but I don't see why this type of course would not solve the distance problem for elite players while staying fun for bogey golfers.  

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I am really suggesting a combination of things.

First, alter par.  Par for the expert player is no longer accurate anyway.

Second, eliminate the back tees; the bulk of the course playing 5800-6400.  

Third, and this is the hard part, create tees around 5000 yards.  I don't think the interest can be the same at 5000 and 6400, but we can do better than now.  

Fourth, "championship" courses are for championships, big AM events and pro events.  These courses, if they want to be considered "championship", should not worry about sub 6200-6400 yard tees.  If handicap players don't like that, don't play there OR folks can stop bitching about unfair/penal courses and go play where they like.  It is not feasible to create a proper championship course and at the same time expect grandmothers to be given an interesting and enjoyable round.  I think we have more than enough championship courses, but I do think we are short of really well designed 6000 yarders.  

Fifth, golfers have to understand that on any given day at least 50% of hazards and features (the way courses are currently designed) will not be in play.  If h&f were moved more toward the middle of the park there is less need for a huge number because many more are in play.  

Sixth, courses need to be firmed up.  I think things are getting better, but we have a long way to go.

Ciao      

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,  I can't speak for others, but I am not at all advocating for all those way forward tees. 

For what it is worth, I'd prefer golfing than walking up too, even if it meant extra shots.  But with hazards, carries, and a hundred yards or so of tee boxes that isn't even a possibility for many golfers on many courses. 

I sympathize with your plight. The distance disparity between long and short screws everything up for everyone. 

agreed 100%

[jeffwarne]

Jeff

I am really suggesting a combination of things.

First, alter par.  Par for the expert player is no longer accurate anyway.

Second, eliminate the back tees; the bulk of the course playing 5800-6400.  

Third, and this is the hard part, create tees around 5000 yards.  I don't think the interest can be the same at 5000 and 6400, but we can do better than now.  

Fourth, "championship" courses are for championships, big AM events and pro events.  These courses, if they want to be considered "championship", should not worry about sub 6200-6400 yard tees.  If handicap players don't like that, don't play there OR folks can stop bitching about unfair/penal courses and go play where they like.  It is not feasible to create a proper championship course and at the same time expect grandmothers to be given an interesting and enjoyable round.  I think we have more than enough championship courses, but I do think we are short of really well designed 6000 yarders.  

Fifth, golfers have to understand that on any given day at least 50% of hazards and features (the way courses are currently designed) will not be in play.  If h&f were moved more toward the middle of the park there is less need for a huge number because many more are in play.  

Sixth, courses need to be firmed up.  I think things are getting better, but we have a long way to go.

Ciao      

Sean agreed almost 100%
(not crazy about altering par-let them make eagles/birdies-if par changes suddenly a 500 yard par 5 hole that was "too easy" has 25-50 yards chopped off when it becomes a 4 because it was  "unfair")

The many good/great courses of the UK demonstrate your points on a repeated basis, even/especially when playing off the visitors tees
Don't think for a second I'm advocating building more championship tees as what you say is entirely true that championship tees are for championships, not courses who think they need them to justify their existence or attarct a future one.

As Dave says, the distance disparity creates many challenges.

Fortunately I play my leisure and competitive golf in the MET area where older,classic  courses keep the distance disparities reasonable.

Fro an architectural standpoint, it doesn't matter what tees you play, different players will interface with different hazards/challenges.
In my case I just don't know till it happens

Since people really do want defined sets of tees........
Where topography and real estate allowsI really would be fine with 3 sets of tees.
a 4800 yard minimum-(beginners and yound juniors)
a 7200 yard maximum-
and a set somewhere around  6200 yards

you then evolve to longer tees as you improve ----mix and match to create desired par, interest, fun, and length

[Craig Sweet]

I sometimes wonder if they would dress the same...

[BCrosby]

My advocacy above for more courses at 8,000 yards was a (not very well done) attempt to set in relief the big issue here. One TD alludes to in his post above mine.

The issue is that if we don't (a) roll back balls and implements or (b) make courses much, much longer (read 8,000 yards or so), the nature of the game played by the best players will have (and already has) changed significantly from the game played in earlier eras.

Neither (a) nor (b) appears to be happening.

Which means that we are today at a place where the game has ceased to be one with much continuity with the game played in the past by its greatest champions.

Losing that historical continuity is a big deal. That continuity can be measured in straight-forward ways -  by the existence of par 4's that require mid/long iron approaches, par 3's that require the longest clubs and par 5's that require at least two good, long shots. Others may have addtional ways to measure it.

None of those things happen on modern courses at 7200 yards when good players use modern equipment. Nor would those things have been tested by a 5900 yard course in 1930. Except that in 1930, holding major events on a 5900 yard course was unthinkable.  

I, for one, believe retaining the game's historical continuity from generation to generation is important. Indeed, it is one of the highest responsibilities we moderns have to the game.

I appreciate that weaker players believe 8000 yard courses are abominations. Or that rolling back balls and equipment is a crime against humanity. Or something. But before caving in to the complaints of the bogey golfer, let's be clear about what we are giving up.

Bob    

  

[Brent Hutto]

Bob,

It's not a crime that the ball and equipment isn't going to be rolled back. Just a fact. It's been bemoaned here for a decade now and maybe it's time to move on to that "Acceptance" part of the grieving process.

Given the choice between seeing courses built or stretched the 8,000-8,400 yards or so versus acknowledging that the game as played by Adam Scott lacks continuity with the game as played by Ben Hogan which is the lesser evil?

I'd argue that our desire to pretend during four tournaments a year that a PGA Tour player in 2013 is playing the same game as a PGA Tour player in 1963 (much less the game played by Harry Vardon in 1913) is an exercise is wishful thinking no matter how long they build a championship golf course today. If some latter-day Golden Age architect-equivalent were to build one of these 8,400 yard monsters for next year's US Open it would be just window dressing to make the illusion more convincing.

The game is still played totally and completely differently today than 50 or 100 years ago in every element, not just distance. For elite players it's just not the same at all.

[Dwight Phelps]

Which means that we are today at a place where the game has ceased to be one with much continuity with the game played in the past by its greatest champions.

Losing that historical continuity is a big deal. That continuity can be measured in straight-forward ways -  by the existence of par 4's that require mid/long iron approaches, par 3's that require the longest clubs and par 5's that require at least two good, long shots. Others may have addtional ways to measure it.

None of those things happen on modern courses at 7200 yards when good players use modern equipment. Nor would those things have been tested by a 5900 yard course in 1930. Except that in 1930, holding major events on a 5900 yard course was unthinkable.  

I will say that, while it's certainly not a 'modern' course, this year's US Open at Merion had at least 1 instance of each item you're looking for while clocking in under 7,000 yards.  There certainly might be other issues with the US Open setup of a course, but it was providing opportunity for these longer shots you were thinking of (though many of the other holes prompted long iron/hybrid/fariway wood tee shots over driver).  I don't think I can really comment accurately whether or not that provides any of the continuity you're looking for, but the specific holes/shots you were asking for immediately brought Merion earlier this year to my mind.