Playability and Length

[James Brown]

Hi All:

I have enjoyed reading the recent comments on playability and "easy" and "fair but tough." It seems folly to try to build a course that can challenge the modern tour pros and still be fun for the club golfer.  Streamsong and Bandon seem like they would be destroyed by the pros in tournament play, but are clearly the future for golf afficionados with decent ability.   This is similar to the classic Scottish courses outside the rota like Dornoch and North Berwick. 

Here is my question:  is it possible to reconcile the pro and amateur games in the long term or are we heading for two different worlds? 

[Kyle Harris]

I think the premise behind this thread is a bit silly.

All you are really asking is how to shift the curve so the experts and masters are shooting in the low 70s (always) instead of the low 60s (sometimes) while keeping the median player in the mid-90s. What, exactly, are you attempting to prove by doing this?

The difference between those who play well and those who don't play well has always been two worlds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

James,

I don't think its silly premise at all.  In general, its harder to build a course for all now, because the distance extremes are so vast, from the 120 yard senior female tee shots to the 320 longest pro tour tee shots.

For years, we have built the 7200 yard course with multiple tees, up to six to accommodate, because no operator wants to turn away any play, not even the 0.1% who play the back tees, or maybe the large percentage of golfers who have been conditioned via marketing that any course without 7K tees is not a true test, whether they play those back tees or not.

But compare this to fashion, where one size fits all has never been a fashion trend.  Or restaurants, where broad based menus (not spectacular at anything, like Howard Johnsons) have given way to hoards of Italian, Asian, Steaks and other specialized menus.....not to mention breastaraunts, which seems to be the key to staying in business despite average food.

Why should golf be the one size fits all sport, especially when one of its appeals is a non standard playing field? 

I think we are heading for two different worlds, and it starts with labeling any course that actually has a tournament, a tournament course, and keeping the championship label for lesser and shorter courses that aren't so tough.

[Keith OHalloran]

Jeff,
Is the Bethpage complex an example of what you are talking about? There is a warning on the Black that it is very difficult, and (at least last time I played it) there are only 2 sets of tees. On the flip side, there are other courses on the same sight that are easier to varying degrees.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Keith,

Multiple courses are the perfect opportunity to offer multiple playing experiences.  Only problem is, at famous places like Pinehurst, everyone seems teed off if they don't get to play No. 2. That is a infrequent resort experience, though. BP is a better place to vary the experience.

[Jason Topp]

One of the problems with the multiple tee box approach is social.  If you have a group with varied abilities, it is nice to play from the same tee box and you are messing up the group a bit if you do not go along with the group.  I probably should be playing a set up from the set I play but all of my friends play from the further back tee and I prefer to play the same course as the group rather than play the perfect tee for me.

I would like to see a 6300-6500 yard course that is a par 74 for someone that hits it 180 yards, par 72 for the 240 yard crowd and par 69 or 70 for the 280 crowd.  A second set of tees with a similar concept could be used for super seniors and women.

While par is an artificial concept, I think having different par numbers on the card might impact traditional design ideas as well as the thinking of the people playing the course.  I could imagine holes such as a 460 yard par 4/5 and a 260 yard par 3/4 that would be a bit unusual and fun for all to play.    I could see a course that requires a wide variety of shots for all distance levels and that breaking par would be a tough challenge for the best players.
 

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

I find that playing from different tee boxes has minimal effect on the social aspect in the situations I generally play.

If you're walking and if the tee boxes are arranged where you can arrive directly from the previous hole to the longest tee anyone is playing. It's easy to stop off there for one or two players to hit then everyone walks forward to where another player or two is teeing off.

When the longer tees have considerable backtracking or when one guy has to sit in the cart while the other tees off, then ride forward and reverse the process, then sociability suffers.

[Tom_Doak]

James:

It's a reasonable question.  Certainly, you can design a course for everyone if you have tees from 7700 yards down to 4500, as at Chambers Bay.  I'm not such a big fan of adding ridiculous length for a handful of Tour pros who rarely ever visit, because if you make the course a decent walking experience for the back tees, you make it a long slog for everyone else.  I think you can make a golf course plenty hard for 99.5% of players without such length.

My course in Washington, Tumble Creek, was used for the U.S. Open sectional qualifier yesterday.  It has generously wide fairways, and it's 7100 yards from the back, not long at all by modern standards, but it is exposed to the wind.  It wasn't the most star-studded of the qualifying fields, but if you broke par for 36 holes there yesterday, you're playing in the Open.

Crystal Downs [see the recent thread] and Pasatiempo are 6500-yard courses which test the best players.