Peter Kostis blames Architects

[Pete Lavallee]

Got to give a lot of credit to Mike Kaiser, four top 25 courses at Bandon and not one has an advertised length greater than 6900. Pacific Dunes is only 6600 from the blacks!

[Don Mahaffey]

If we are complaining about 7000 yard courses in regard to the expense required to build, maintain, and play, then there is plenty of blame to go around.
It is very convenient to blame the equipment manufacturers for all that ills the game, but Architects do own a large part of the blame.
For instance, they allow this sort of this.

These three heads are on a green that has 13 sprinkler heads around it, two quick couplers, 2 green's drainage clean outs, and two bunker clean outs. That amounts to 19 obstructions around a single green.
But, if you want to make a living in golf, you have to embrace this sort of thing because it is a lot more accepted then doing something practical.

[Chris Johnston]

In working with Tom and his team, I recall a discussion about length.  Thankfully, we both agreed 100% that longer wasn't better.  I think we are a whisker short of, or a whisker over, 7,000 yards from the back tees.  Funny thing in practice...few play from the back.

Agree with Don too - just think about the added irrigation costs (pipe & heads) to complete a yardage that, maybe, 1%-2% can both play and enjoy.

Merry Christmas, All!

[Thomas Dai]

Are there any industry 'standards' for distance measurement?

For example, are overall distances always measured from the very back of the very back tee? And at the green end of the hole, are they always measured front/mid/back? Also, for dogleg holes, is the measurement down the centre line of the hole turning at the dogleg or does it follow the inside fairway line or even the outside fairway line?

Seems like there could be quite a lot of scope for shall we say 'interpretation' - what is one persons 7,000 yds can with varied measurement be another persons say 6,700 or 7,300 or whatever depending on the circumstances.

Atb

[jeffwarne]

Thomas,
Most Golf associations will use the yardage from the  middle of a dedicated tee (which gets a bit dicey if two markers share a larger tee)
So a large back tee would generate a shorter yardage than a smaller one could.
There is another well known course out here that simply added a couple hundred yards to the scorecard when they built the course without actually adding the yardage to the tees/course

[Mike_Young]

There is another well known course out here that simply added a couple hundred yards to the scorecard when they built the course without actually adding the yardage to the tees/course

Jeff,
As you know there are a few southern redneck courses that have been adding yardage to the scorecard for years without touching it.  I know one owner that went to the very back of the back tees and measured to the very back of each green ...I'm quite sure there are some tournaments now that are played under 7000 yards on curses that have a back tee total of 7000 or more...

[Joe Zucker]

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid.

How many developers have you interviewed to test this theory out? 

Perhaps the problem is that the developers don't even care what the golfers want ... they think that having a 7,000 yard course INCREASES THE PRICE OF THE HOMES because it implies some prestige that the prospective homeowner [many of whom do not play golf] will attach a higher value to.

This myth would not have perpetuated if golf course architects had gotten together at one of their plaid-jacket meetings and determined that longer courses were bad for the game and they should refuse to build them.  Sadly, the architects as a group can never manage to take a stand on anything like that, because they're all afraid one of their fellows will do what the developer wants and steal the job away from them.

Haha great point Tom.  Exactly zero.

While I'm sure you have some stories about developers that would make me question humanity, in general I think they are pretty good at making money. Otherwise they would not be able to build these new courses.  But their golf knowledge, I'm sure that's another story.

[Garland Bayley]

I know most players don't play the back tees, but I think the retail golfer views 7,000 as a signal that the course is "good".  I don't think this is a good signal, but I think it exists.  And yes in this regard most golfers are "stupid", because we all know most golfers are playing tees way too far back for their ability.

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid. They want to make money and they are building 7,000 yard courses, which suggests this is what the market wants.  Jeff makes a great point on the distinction of building courses for golf vs real estate development. That probably has a lot to do with it because they are not as concerned with the quality of the golf.

I think you don't give golfers credit properly. It is your standard that they don't adhere to. They play back because they want to, and they enjoy doing it. Many golfers think you are stupid, because it would appear you believe in the silly concept of reaching a green in regulation, and you believe in a silly concept called par.

[Sean_A]

Joel

It would be an interesting to know how well newish sub 7000 yard courses are doing in the 7000+ yard market of golfers.  I suspect, the lure of 7000+ yards has waned with the average age of golfers on the rise.  Perhaps marketing hasn't caught up with reality?  I think its easier to cookie cutter market 7000 yards as championship golf compared to what makes a 6500-700 yard courses stand out.  The cookie cutter marketing is evident as it was the "slogan" when there were 400 courses a year built.  But we must remember, its marketing and a good market campaign for 6500 yard course can be just as successful...one course at a time...which is now how courses are built.  I predict the importance of 7000+ yards will fade so long as the golf market remains depressed.  I think it has alreay faded some.  

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

I think you don't give golfers credit properly. It is your standard that they don't adhere to. They play back because they want to, and they enjoy doing it. Many golfers think you are stupid, because it would appear you believe in the silly concept of reaching a green in regulation, and you believe in a silly concept called par.

Oh come on now. Those yahoos playing the tips, swinging out of their shoes, taking mulligans and insisting on 7,000 yard courses are as totally beholden to "par" as any Tour player. Why do you think they take free drop, mulligans, give each other long putts and generally make a mockery of the Rules? It's so they can post a score of "11 over par" after losing two sleeves of balls.

How many people have I met in 20 years of playing golf who don't care what the par of a hole might be, who don't speak of reaching or not reaching a green in regulation and who don't know their stroke play score at every point in the round? I can not remember a single such person outside of a few oddballs I know through this forum.

[Joe Zucker]

I know most players don't play the back tees, but I think the retail golfer views 7,000 as a signal that the course is "good".  I don't think this is a good signal, but I think it exists.  And yes in this regard most golfers are "stupid", because we all know most golfers are playing tees way too far back for their ability.

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid. They want to make money and they are building 7,000 yard courses, which suggests this is what the market wants.  Jeff makes a great point on the distinction of building courses for golf vs real estate development. That probably has a lot to do with it because they are not as concerned with the quality of the golf.

I think you don't give golfers credit properly. It is your standard that they don't adhere to. They play back because they want to, and they enjoy doing it. Many golfers think you are stupid, because it would appear you believe in the silly concept of reaching a green in regulation, and you believe in a silly concept called par.

It is not my standard.  But yes I do believe in the idea of par generally.  The architect has shots in mind when they lay out holes and place hazards, so in general I want to hit those shots.  If I play 7,000 yards its not much fun to hit woods into every green and I may not be able to reach any of the hazards off the tee making the course less interesting.  In that regard I "believe" in par.

I'm not sure how you can say they average golfer deserves more credit, since they keep score religiously. The average golfer can't break 90 and they have no idea how far they hit their clubs.  Their drives only go 215 yards, but they would never admit that.  This is not true of every high handicapper, but many fall into this group.

[Rob Marshall]

I think you don't give golfers credit properly. It is your standard that they don't adhere to. They play back because they want to, and they enjoy doing it. Many golfers think you are stupid, because it would appear you believe in the silly concept of reaching a green in regulation, and you believe in a silly concept called par.

Oh come on now. Those yahoos playing the tips, swinging out of their shoes, taking mulligans and insisting on 7,000 yard courses are as totally beholden to "par" as any Tour player. Why do you think they take free drop, mulligans, give each other long putts and generally make a mockery of the Rules? It's so they can post a score of "11 over par" after losing two sleeves of balls.

How many people have I met in 20 years of playing golf who don't care what the par of a hole might be, who don't speak of reaching or not reaching a green in regulation and who don't know their stroke play score at every point in the round? I can not remember a single such person outside of a few oddballs I know through this forum.

I had to laugh when I read this. I'm playing in Ireland last year and  3 of the 8 on the trip were low single digits and the others ranged from 7 to 15. We're playing the Dunluce at Portrush and I'm a scratch getting the shit kicked out of me by the course. It's raining, windy, and the fescue was so thick it's like having OB on both sides of every fairway. Anyways I'm playing with the 7. On no less than 4 holes he losses a ball in the fescue and drops another ball in the fairway and plays from there. We're not playing for anything so I could care less what he does. I'm hitting provisionals and in one case running back to the tee to hit another after losing a ball that we thought was in play. We're in the pub that night and I tell one of the guys that I've made more triples on this trip than I've made in the last 10 years. Then I hear the 7 telling a guy who was in the other group that he shot 78. I just laughed..........

[Paul Gray]

Thomas,

Just a very quick bit of information for your general interest:

In England all yardages, theoretically at least, are accurately measured and recorded by persons aauthorised to do so and those yardages should be officially recognised by the relevant county golf union. Doglegs should be measured once an apex has been determined and therefore tweaking fairways can mess with accuracy without clubs ever realising it. Oh, and you have to measure from two yards in front of the very back edge of the tee so as to roughly approximate the two clubs length a player should have available to him or her. In other words, if a hole measures 382 yards from the back edge of the tee, you have to call it 380 yards and put the markers in at that point.

[Mike_Young]

Thomas,

Just a very quick bit of information for your general interest:

In England all yardages, theoretically at least, are accurately measured and recorded by persons aauthorised to do so and those yardages should be officially recognised by the relevant county golf union. Doglegs should be measured once an apex has been determined and therefore tweaking fairways can mess with accuracy without clubs ever realising it. Oh, and you have to measure from two yards in front of the very back edge of the tee so as to roughly approximate the two clubs length a player should have available to him or her. In other words, if a hole measures 382 yards from the back edge of the tee, you have to call it 380 yards and put the markers in at that point.

The same applies in USA in theory but it is often not done that way...

[Patrick_Mucci]

7,000 courses followed the increase in distance achieved thru hi-tech, not the other way around.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It seems for a while, Fazio built a string of less than 7K courses.  His clients were clubs for older gents, by and large, and he always wanted a playable course.  Could probably name a 100 other courses as such.

Short version is, most architects try to build a course suitable for its purpose and the owner desires, although those two may not always coincide.

As to what ASGCA should have condoned or endorsed or oppose as a group in a field of unique individuals, that probably won't ever happen.  Nor, should it, especially to an iconoclast like TD.  I guess we all pick and choose what we think others should stand for, no? 

If ASGCA members are sell outs of some kind, it occurs that every time TD puts cart paths, more than two multiple tees, back tees over 7,000 yards, designs a real estate course or anything else he has strongly written or opined against, he could be perceived this way.  In fact, he has written almost as much here on this site, that sometimes, you (and even he) just gotta do what the client expects. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

If you look back and read my post carefully, I didn't call you guys sell-outs.

I lamented that even on a subject where many architects say they agree, the architects' associations cannot agree to try and do anything about it as a group -- even to say that they agree! -- because some members will dissent.  The bigger the group, the more impossible it is to find consensus on anything.  Which pretty much takes leadership on such issues off the table, it seems to me.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

As any media savvy person knows, its not always the exact words that stick with folks, but I agree it is hard to get that big a group to agree on much.  And on some issues, that is on purpose.  We are only a society to join together on issues of common good, but design standardization isn't seen as on of those kind of issues. From time to time, we have promoted generally agreed upon things in architecture, like affordable golf, water conservation, etc.  We have even promoted the benefit of shorter courses (Bill Amick's Caymen push, Alice Dye and forward tes (now morphed into my push for forward tees at 4000 yards, etc.)  Hard to measure if the group message has a huge impact, but obviously, the general direction of golf hasn't changed a whole lot.

And, for that matter, it is fairly obvious that the increased length of golf courses trend will only change course at the rate of the turn of the Titanic.  Again, even had we put out a position that not every golf course needs tournament length, I wonder how much impact it would have had?  Everyone seems to want a tournament course, for reasons discussed in this thread.

But, as noted, not all architects insist on it.  However, I did stand up at ASGCA one year and ask how many guys had actually been asked to design an 8,000 yard course, and was surprised at how many had been. (and how many had complied, which I assumed would be the case) The only guy I recall publicly promoting that was Roger Rulewhich, which seemed to be part of his ongoing RTJ legacy, a la the Alabama trail (although I don't recall what those courses top out at...I know they are long)

I have a design underway here that is going to be 6600-6800 yards tops (if it actually gets built).  My China stuff is "required" to be over 7000.

My real issue these days about 7K is that it seems to be a 'tweener distance between the best players and the next class.  Most club players I talk to find 7200 to be just fine, so after a period of longer back tees, I would suggest that as plenty long for most courses.  Even NCAA courses don't set up longer than that to protect the field, and they are supposed to be the longest hitting group around.  Any pro tour course at 7500+ yards is said to shut out most of the field.

So I hate it when a consultant recommends a 7000 yard course.  Just seems out of date.  But, in general, I don't have an issue with building a 400 sf back tee for the few who play there, as long as it doesn't increase turf acres a lot, or increase costs too dramatically (which no doubt, a 7600 yard course would)

I don't really see how the majority of it is the architects fault.  I do think the industry should be promoting another class of golf course that doesn't need tournament tees for that 1%, using the analogy that in the restaurant biz, general menu restaurants seem to lose out to specialty places, like Mexican, etc.  Maybe the golf course market needs to mature into something other than the one size fits all mentality.  Tee it Forward is sort of that kind of initiative, but we will see if that kind of thinking sticks, or fades away (getting ASGCA to agree is one thing, getting all the associations to agree is 10X tougher)

[Randy Thompson]

I have a course being considered for a European PGA tour event in the near future and have been asked to get in touch with the powers to be to bring up the course to their minimum standards. When I asked such as? The developer replied minimum of 7000 yards and we have somewhere around 6900 yards. I found that a little strange and in the next few weeks will find out if that is true or not.

[Garland Bayley]

I think you don't give golfers credit properly. It is your standard that they don't adhere to. They play back because they want to, and they enjoy doing it. Many golfers think you are stupid, because it would appear you believe in the silly concept of reaching a green in regulation, and you believe in a silly concept called par.

Oh come on now. Those yahoos playing the tips, swinging out of their shoes, taking mulligans and insisting on 7,000 yard courses are as totally beholden to "par" as any Tour player. Why do you think they take free drop, mulligans, give each other long putts and generally make a mockery of the Rules? It's so they can post a score of "11 over par" after losing two sleeves of balls.

How many people have I met in 20 years of playing golf who don't care what the par of a hole might be, who don't speak of reaching or not reaching a green in regulation and who don't know their stroke play score at every point in the round? I can not remember a single such person outside of a few oddballs I know through this forum.

Let me clarify "you believe in a silly concept called par", etc. Perhaps better said it would be "par is relevant to you". There are many people who don't have handicaps that love the game. If they were to try and establish a handicap, they couldn't achieve the men's maximum. Par is not relevant to them. They don't play the game to get pars. They play the game, because they love the game, and they love hitting the ball. Their goal is to put together two good shots back to back, because their good shots are pretty random and seldom. They are not the "11 over par" Matt Wards of the world as you describe above. They may be able to hit the ball a long ways, but it often will approach going sideways as far as it goes straight ahead. Moving them forward on tees will make little difference, because they are far more directionally challenged than distance challenged. They will buy a lob wedge, because that's what people say they should use, but they will only increase their score by using it, because it has too much loft for them to have a chance to hit it consistently. They might hit it 60, 120, and 180 yards on successive swings.

[Garland Bayley]

I know most players don't play the back tees, but I think the retail golfer views 7,000 as a signal that the course is "good".  I don't think this is a good signal, but I think it exists.  And yes in this regard most golfers are "stupid", because we all know most golfers are playing tees way too far back for their ability.

My fundamental argument is developers are not stupid. They want to make money and they are building 7,000 yard courses, which suggests this is what the market wants.  Jeff makes a great point on the distinction of building courses for golf vs real estate development. That probably has a lot to do with it because they are not as concerned with the quality of the golf.

I think you don't give golfers credit properly. It is your standard that they don't adhere to. They play back because they want to, and they enjoy doing it. Many golfers think you are stupid, because it would appear you believe in the silly concept of reaching a green in regulation, and you believe in a silly concept called par.

It is not my standard.  But yes I do believe in the idea of par generally.  The architect has shots in mind when they lay out holes and place hazards, so in general I want to hit those shots.  If I play 7,000 yards its not much fun to hit woods into every green and I may not be able to reach any of the hazards off the tee making the course less interesting.  In that regard I "believe" in par.

I'm not sure how you can say they average golfer deserves more credit, since they keep score religiously. The average golfer can't break 90 and they have no idea how far they hit their clubs.  Their drives only go 215 yards, but they would never admit that.  This is not true of every high handicapper, but many fall into this group.

If you think hitting woods to every green is not much fun, then par is your standard. People who love to hit the ball and don't have par as their standard don't care if they hit woods to every green.

[Brent Hutto]

In my experience, those people you describe will attribute some "score" to the round when it is done. However fanciful their interpretation of scoring and of the Rules might be. And they know how that "score" related to par on each hole.

But yeah there are a few Dan King's in the world who have evolved beyond Par, beyond Scoring, beyond anything except appreciating the elemental pleasures of the game. Eventually they don't even needs clubs or a golf course to fully experience their form of the game. So I do realize there are rare exceptions to my generalization that every USA golfer thinks about his results relative to par.

[Garland Bayley]

In my experience, those people you describe will attribute some "score" to the round when it is done. However fanciful their interpretation of scoring and of the Rules might be. And they know how that "score" related to par on each hole.

But yeah there are a few Dan King's in the world who have evolved beyond Par, beyond Scoring, beyond anything except appreciating the elemental pleasures of the game. Eventually they don't even needs clubs or a golf course to fully experience their form of the game. So I do realize there are rare exceptions to my generalization that every USA golfer thinks about his results relative to par.

They may know how that score related to par on each hole, because the par is listed for each hole in proximity to the place where they record their score. However, it is irrelevant, because that's not where they derive their core love for the game.

I played a US Open preview with John Kirk at Chambers Bay at 7600 or 7700 yards or so. On one 500 yard hole he asked me what club I was going to use to reach the green with my approach. The question surprised me, because I was simply looking for a place to hit my second shot so that my next shot would be doable. Clearly he was looking at the scorecard specially printed for the event that gave the hole a par of four. By the end of the round he commented to me that he thought I enjoyed the game of golf more than he did. I could see why. He tries to maintain a handicap of three or so, whereas I try to hit shots, and a handicap is a side effect of the number of shots I hit.

I sometimes play with a much younger work colleague that is a superb dancer and highly conditioned runner, so obviously understands and has tempo. He loves the game. However, he hits the golf ball all over the place, and spends much of his time trying to get his ball back in play. Par isn't very relevant for him. Golf is more of an adventure than a measurement against a silly thing called par.

[Doug Siebert]

In working with Tom and his team, I recall a discussion about length.  Thankfully, we both agreed 100% that longer wasn't better.  I think we are a whisker short of, or a whisker over, 7,000 yards from the back tees.  Funny thing in practice...few play from the back.

Agree with Don too - just think about the added irrigation costs (pipe & heads) to complete a yardage that, maybe, 1%-2% can both play and enjoy.

Merry Christmas, All!

Dismal Red is rather unique though in not having tee markers.  There really aren't any "back tees", there is just "hit it from wherever you want that you think looks like a good place to tee off from".  The 9th hole might be nearly 500 yards, if we decide to tee off left of the 8th green (man, that would be one hell of a tee shot, wouldn't it?)  For those who haven't been there, of course there are teeing areas and we generally play from them, but without markers you don't really have to, unless you're in a highly serious event like the 5th Major

I would guess the White sees more play from the back tees than the Red even though it is a lot harder from the back tees than the Red (unless you make up your own) because it has tee markers.  I think we're not as conscious of "tips" when you don't have them calling attention to themselves.

My home course built a couple crazy tips for when the Big Ten championships or some minitour event is played there, but the back tee markers are never placed on them.  One that adds 55 yards to a par 4 making it 505 is for safety (you drive over a well traveled cartpath and a duck hook could kill someone in the practice area) and one that makes a 200 yard shot to an island green 235 because it is almost impossible to grow grass in that spot.

I've tried them each a couple times but since the markers are never placed there I play from the regular back tees on those holes.  Other than a few studs on the college team, no one ever plays those.  If the tips were there, we'd all be there, and the grass on the par 3 tee and by now someone in the practice area would be dead

[John Kirk]

I played a US Open preview with John Kirk at Chambers Bay at 7600 or 7700 yards or so. On one 500 yard hole he asked me what club I was going to use to reach the green with my approach. The question surprised me, because I was simply looking for a place to hit my second shot so that my next shot would be doable. Clearly he was looking at the scorecard specially printed for the event that gave the hole a par of four. By the end of the round he commented to me that he thought I enjoyed the game of golf more than he did. I could see why. He tries to maintain a handicap of three or so, whereas I try to hit shots, and a handicap is a side effect of the number of shots I hit.

I don't remember half of this exchange.  By asking you which club you wanted for your next shot on a 500 yard par 4, I was probably trying to do a subtle bit of coaching on what must have been your second (or possibly third) shot.  If I'm playing a 500 yard par 4, and I hit a less than ideal drive, I will consider trying to lay up to a good full wedge distance, and play for a bogey 5.  On that day we were certainly trying to shoot a decent score on a course sort of set up for a U.S. Open.  I think I shot 86, and Garland that day had by far the best net score, shooting about 100.

I'm more playful about hitting different kind of shots than you give me credit for.  Most of the time I play for score; sometimes I just fool around.  Windy courses with firm turf are especially fun for attempting shots of varying trajectories.  I may attempt low percentage shots, but I'm still trying to knock it close.

You are correct that I enjoy the game less in recent years.  Playing is not as fun as it used to be, while at the same time the gentle exercise it provides is more important.  After gradually improving for about 25 years, I hit a peak in ability 7-8 years ago, and now may be on a slow descent.  Although I've said in recent years that I'm not that competitive, that's not really true.  I'm happy when I'm playing well and kicking ass.  I'm going to work at my golf game a bit this year, and see if I can my handicap back below 3.

On the other hand, I don't rule out the possibility of quitting golf, and finding another pastime.  You only live once, and I've played golf for 35 years.