[Lou_Duran]

"As to width, I think it was Flynn who said you challenge accuracy first.  Not sure why that wouldn't apply to at least most tee shots.   I don't think protecting par at the greens is a great idea either.  Why not protect it on long shots, too, for a more well rounded test?" J Brauer

Couldn't agree more.  I think that challenging all aspects of the game separates the "championship" from the club courses- say Turnberry vs. Brora from another current thread.  Flexibility to vary length requirements relative to the competition and local conditions is key.

As to designing courses that can challenge top amateurs at most, I think that Nicklaus came to a similar conclusion more than 10 years ago.   He said that his focus from the tips was the top club golfers, then he would add "gorilla" tees more as an afterthought if the client had intentions of occasional higher-end events.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,


Architects did start responding to length in how they laid out the holes.  Through the early 1990's, we used 800 feet/266 yards from back tee to dogleg post.  After ProV1, some went to 300 yards/900 feet.  The most I ever used as a base for design was 875 feet/292 yards, which is still the average distance for the PGA Tour.  Then, I would typically start (subject to topos, etc) place the next tees at 775/258 yds, 675/225 yards, 575, 192 yards, and 400-475/or 140-158 yards.


I have gone back to 850/283 yards, 750/250 yards, 650/216 yards, 550/183 yards and 400-450, 140-150 yards.  Given the statistical decline of distance among average golfers, at the expense of having a few long hitters blow by traps around the 283 mark, the design works better for everyone else. 


Of course, actual tee placement depends on topo, yada yada yada.  Don't want to give the impression that I am bound too tightly to the math, but you have to start somewhere.  For that matter, I don't separate the tees the same on every hole, I am doing it more proportionally, like 40 yards on 400 yard holes, 50 yards on 500 yard holes, etc. in an attempt to give everyone similar clubs into the green.


Yes, just more pandering to some!

[Garland Bayley]

...  But it seems one result of wider courses is that players don't even think about gearing down and trying to hit it in the fairway likecwe all used to do; ...
I am hopeful that a shorter course can also ask players to be more accurate because they don't have to be as long.

IMO the fallacy of this is that the Pope of Slope's Wild Willys don't get any benefit from gearing down. They can hit the 6 iron well off the course, just as they hit their driver well off the course.

Anyone who has played with Kalen knows this.

[Thomas Dai]

"As to width, I think it was Flynn who said you challenge accuracy first.  Not sure why that wouldn't apply to at least most tee shots.   I don't think protecting par at the greens is a great idea either.  Why not protect it on long shots, too, for a more well rounded test?" ...

But at least width when combined with short grass and lack of water hazards allows players to find their wayward shots relatively easily so pace of play it kept decent and in these days of longer and longer courses pace of play is a significant issue. “Golf takes too long to play” is often mentioned as a reason for the decline in folks taking up the game.
Balance and compromise rather than black-and-white?
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

For a long time accuracy from the tee was very important and the Driver was the hardest club in the bag to hit well, which was why many folks used a 2-wood, 3-wood form the tee. They also didn’t hit the ball as far including so far off-line.
Now it seems the need for accuracy has lessoned. Not only with the width issue under discussion in various threads herein at the moment, and which if angles into greens are dealt with appropriately the effect can be minimised, but with the modern generation of clubs and ‘go straighter’ balls.
Is this an issue though?
...
Atb

Perhaps not as much of an issue as you think perhaps. Since the 1970s the TopFlite and similar balls have been straight and long. If my experience of finding golf balls on course reflects actual sales, the two piece balls have always out sold the more expensive balls so the majority of golfers have been longer and straighter than they might otherwise have been since the 1970s at least. Also, it is my experience that the average golfer (which is not the same as the average golfer on this site) cannot hit the modern driver better than they can a three wood. So no advantage is gained there. For the average golfer, the equipment companies are selling snake oil IMO.

Dr. Mac emphasized not needing to search for golf balls. I don't care how you do it. Wide, wide fairways, or narrow fairways and thin whispy rough. Just make it happen, and I am happy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, its all about the details.  I recommend the rough be cut just high enough to differentiate it from the fw.  In theory, it reduces spin for good players, and helps average players find balls.  Some of them like the cushion under the ball anyway.


I am working with a public course right now.  One golfer complaint is long rough.  Course is on a tight budget, so they eliminate rough care in favor of greens, bunkers, fw, etc.  Seems logical, but has an effect on pace of play, enjoyment, etc.

[Lou_Duran]

Dr. Mac emphasized not needing to search for golf balls. I don't care how you do it. Wide, wide fairways, or narrow fairways and thin whispy rough. Just make it happen, and I am happy.

The Good Doctor wrote a lot of things that his courses did not reflect.  I am afraid, and I say this with some sympathy, that it would be far easier for you to fix your swing than for Jeff to design a course that can contain your full range of shots.  Just the cost of land today would make it prohibitive.  And BTW, I am one of those whose driver is about as straight as any longish iron or fairway metal.  Something about a ball being high on the peg and a club head the size of a small pumpkin.

David T,

From a business standpoint, it makes sense to build as much flexibility into a course as possible so as to attract a wide range of golfers.  At the same time, shortish courses with very wide fairways, little or no rough, no water, etc. defeats an important element of golf for most people, the challenge.  Fast play is but one objective, and I am sorry to say, for not so many people, even in this discussion group.

The best compromise IMO is a course that is relatively wide, say 40-60 yards in the LZ at 220-260, narrower thereafter, just enough rough to define the fairway lines, and multiple tees to allow the player to pick his poison.  Set up the course with tee and hole locations in consideration to the type of play, weather, and course conditions prevailing on the given day.  We've had many discussions regarding pace of play.  Without leadership and a strong, in-your-face commitment to fast play at the highest level, we are whistling Dixie.

BTW, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "right-sized" golf courses and the concept of "want vs. need" as it relates to golf and many other human endeavors just doesn't compute. 

[Thomas Dai]

Here's another aspect to the width debate.
The price of golf balls.
A relatively wide open course means players are less likely to lose a ball. Good for the golfer. Bad for pro-shop golf ball sales.
A relatively narrow course means players are more likely to lose a ball. Bad for the player. Good for pro-shop golf balls sales.
Golf balls are expensive. Add the number (cost) of how many balls lost to the cost of a green-fee round (or membership). It can be significant. A kind of hidden cost.
atb

[Sam Andrews]

Well to a point. Courses where lots of balls are lost also seem to be those where lots of balls are found (mostly pinnacles unfortunately). I rarely buy balls at my course because I find so many. It may also just be me but I find new balls are covered in some sort of vanishing cream that must wear off after a small spell in the longer grass.   

Here's another aspect to the width debate.
The price of golf balls.
A relatively wide open course means players are less likely to lose a ball. Good for the golfer. Bad for pro-shop golf ball sales.
A relatively narrow course means players are more likely to lose a ball. Bad for the player. Good for pro-shop golf balls sales.
Golf balls are expensive. Add the number (cost) of how many balls lost to the cost of a green-fee round (or membership). It can be significant. A kind of hidden cost.
atb

[Garland Bayley]

Dr. Mac emphasized not needing to search for golf balls. I don't care how you do it. Wide, wide fairways, or narrow fairways and thin whispy rough. Just make it happen, and I am happy.

The Good Doctor wrote a lot of things that his courses did not reflect.  I am afraid, and I say this with some sympathy, that it would be far easier for you to fix your swing than for Jeff to design a course that can contain your full range of shots.  ...

It seems to me that finding balls is much more a course maintenance issue than a design issue. The super at Mammoth Dunes could narrow the fairway to 10 yards and keep short rough and achieve the same minimal lost balls.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()