[Jason Topp]

In 2005 I suggested that an 8,000 yard course might yield more interesting play than extreme setups of 7,000 yard courses.  It was an interesting thought experiment that suggested the outlandish idea that par 4's should be up to 540 yards in length. 

Last week came pretty close to my suggestion.  I am not sure any of my thoughts of the impact of such a setup were accurate but is interesting to see how they stack up today.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,17023.msg298370.html#msg298370

[Frank M]

No, not at all.

I don't understand what question it answers. If it's what kind of course we need to challenge 1% of the worlds golf population, I don't even know why it's a question at all.

If I had to play a course like Erin Hills even semi-regularly I'd have probably quit golf long ago. For me, Erin Hills represented everything that's wrong about a golf course — its whole purpose was to cater to challenging the pros, occupies way too much land, costs $280 minimum to play, does not lend itself to decent playing times, and the list can go on.


If we are going to be building courses so we can challenge 1% of the golfing population, then lets build one and have them play there every single time and leave the rest of the world alone.


Regarding the green fee, I'd rather have a private club host the event than a $280 golf course and have to hear how it grows the game and is accessible to the public the entire week.

[Josh Tarble]

I think longer courses actually play easier for the pros.  It takes all decision making out of it for them.  For example, Erin Hills hole 5 at 505 yards played easier than 15 at 370 yards.  The key for the pros (and all golfers) is making them question their decision making.  Any hole that doesn't do that stands no chance, even if you lengthen them to absurd distances. 

[jeffwarne]

Longer courses have ALWAYS been the answer, dating back to the 1890's, and no doubt before.
In fact it can be argued that this era has adjusted the LEAST for hot equipment. (given the size of the jump)


They don't play championships at 4500 yards as they once did, and we all just tend to fixate on the era we grew up in.
For me, that's a 6900 yard back tee length-and though I am no doubt guilty as charged,  I can at least justify it by suggesting that a  majority of classic courses would be Championship relevant if the ball (and clubs) were shrunk to 1960's-70's level, and a club champ(245-260) could at least play with a professional(260-290) at those lengths, even of he would still lose by 10 shots

[Peter Pallotta]

When I imagine myself as a great golfer, what I imagine is not putting or bunker play or even bombing it off the tee; it's being able to hit & shape & flight a 2 iron -- hitting a high draw to a tucked pin, or a low running fade.
So: no, I think shorter (total yardage) courses are the way to test the best. No Par 5s, replaced with extra (and extra long) Par 3s - 6 of them. On most of the 12 Par 4s: cross hazards in the landing zone, with canted/sloped and rumpled fairways. Mainly small, perched and undulating greens dropping off to DA type bunkers and closely mowed chipping areas.

[cary lichtenstein]

In 2005 I suggested that an 8,000 yard course might yield more interesting play than extreme setups of 7,000 yard courses.  It was an interesting thought experiment that suggested the outlandish idea that par 4's should be up to 540 yards in length. 

Last week came pretty close to my suggestion.  I am not sure any of my thoughts of the impact of such a setup were accurate but is interesting to see how they stack up today.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,17023.msg298370.html#msg298370

Excellent vision, Tiger winning with a 2 iron off the tee, never hitting driver is over, thank goodness. How would Tiger have fared on this course, he would never have made the cut.His big miss, both the huge blocked shot to the right and the duck hook, would have betrayed him .


Nicklaus would have fared well, ditto Snead and Hogan.

[Joe Sponcia]

No, not at all.

I don't understand what question it answers. If it's what kind of course we need to challenge 1% of the worlds golf population I don't even know why it's a question at all.

If I had to play a course like Erin Hills even semi-regularly I'd have probably quit golf long ago.

For me, Erin Hills represented everything that's wrong about a golf course this week — it's whole purpose was to cater to challenging the pros, occupies way too much land, costs $280 minimum to play, does not lend itself to decent playing times and the list can go on. If we are going to be building courses so we can challenge 1% of the golfing population, then lets build one and have them play there every single time and leave the rest of the world alone.

And regarding the green fee, I'd rather have a private club host the event than some $280 golf course and have to hear how it grows the game and is accessible to the public the entire week.

Ditto this entire post.  Wow.

[jeffwarne]

In 2005 I suggested that an 8,000 yard course might yield more interesting play than extreme setups of 7,000 yard courses.  It was an interesting thought experiment that suggested the outlandish idea that par 4's should be up to 540 yards in length. 

Last week came pretty close to my suggestion.  I am not sure any of my thoughts of the impact of such a setup were accurate but is interesting to see how they stack up today.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,17023.msg298370.html#msg298370

Excellent vision, Tiger winning with a 2 iron off the tee, never hitting driver is over, thank goodness. How would Tiger have fared on this course, he would never have made the cut.His big miss, both the huge blocked shot to the right and the duck hook, would have betrayed him .


Nicklaus would have fared well, ditto Snead and Hogan.

Very good points
Tiger in 2000 maybe

[Frank M]

I though I'd be the only one.

[Jim Nugent]

If you want to challenge the pro's, protect par and make courses shorter... build more par 3s.

On average, pro's score worse on par 3s than any other hole (against par).  They score best on par 5s.  So build more par 3s.  You shorten the courses, increase the number of clubs pro's must hit, and keep courses more accessible for average players (par 3s are the easiest for them).  Depending on the design, you can still put driver in touring pro's hands plenty as well.

Actually, I think you can build courses that tip in under 7000 yards, and do the trick nicely.   

[Josh Tarble]

When I imagine myself as a great golfer, what I imagine is not putting or bunker play or even bombing it off the tee; it's being able to hit & shape & flight a 2 iron -- hitting a high draw to a tucked pin, or a low running fade.
So: no, I think shorter (total yardage) courses are the way to test the best. No Par 5s, replaced with extra (and extra long) Par 3s - 6 of them. On most of the 12 Par 4s: cross hazards in the landing zone, with canted/sloped and rumpled fairways. Mainly small, perched and undulating greens dropping off to DA type bunkers and closely mowed chipping areas.

I'd love to see a really really well designed course like this in the US.  I think it would be fantastic and I think the golf climate would be more accepting of a par 64 now than ever before.  A small course that plays big.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the Pebble Beach solution is the best.


Where possible (likely not public courses), build well protected smaller greens...

[A.G._Crockett]

If you want to challenge the pro's, protect par and make courses shorter... build more par 3s.

On average, pro's score worse on par 3s than any other hole (against par).  They score best on par 5s.  So build more par 3s.  You shorten the courses, increase the number of clubs pro's must hit, and keep courses more accessible for average players (par 3s are the easiest for them).  Depending on the design, you can still put driver in touring pro's hands plenty as well.

Actually, I think you can build courses that tip in under 7000 yards, and do the trick nicely.

Ding, ding, ding!  We have a winner!

Let's assume for just a moment that the single biggest difference between myself and Dustin Johnson, currently #1 in the world is length off the tee; after all, he averages almost 100 yards more than I.  Now assume that DJ and I play a match with the winner being the first to hole out from TWENTY FEET away.  I have a chance, right?  I mean, my putt could go in, and his could lip out.

Now we move back say to 200 yds; my chances are GREATLY reduced.  It's possible, of course, that I could hole out my 3 wood, and it's possible that he could shank his 8 iron, but realistically, I'm in trouble.

On a course of 2000 yards, I have essentially NO chance, of course, and the farther back we go, the more laughable the whole thing becomes.  At 8000 yards, however, I might again have a chance because DJ might break a rib laughing.

The idea that making courses LONGER will somehow lessen the importance of length off the tee is, and always has been, the most illogical idea possible.  "Tigerproofing"?  What a joke!  Has THAT made length less important?  Hell, it didn't even make Tiger himself less important; he laughed all the way to the bank.

Many years ago, there was a discussion about raising the basket in basketball to lessen the importance of height by eliminating dunking.  Al McGuire responded by explaining that a higher basket would make height MORE important, not less; if you wanted to bring back the little man, put the basket in a hole in the floor!  And thus with length on a golf course.

[Ben Hollerbach]

In response to Erin Hills, I think the course stats actually disprove the length is the answer argument.


During the final round the shortest par 3 (9) played as the hardest par 3 on the course and was tied for the second hardest hole overall. Along with that, the second shortest par 4 on the course (15) played as the hardest hole overall. Most interestingly the 18th at 681 yards played only 0.3 strokes harder than the 15th, a hole that was nearly 1/2 its length.


With the greens at 9 and 15 being two of the most severe on the course, this data suggest that difficulty has very little to do with length but rather putting surfaces that have slope and contour, forcing the player to better think their way to the hole.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()