[Matthew Mollica]

What would you think if the governing bodies of the game instituted a maximum length for all golf courses?


New courses were not to be built at a length that exceeded the stated maximum. The action perhaps motivated by the idea of responsible resource use.


How would such an edict be met by architects?


Would such a move have implications for balls and clubs used in playing the game?


Matt

[Derek_Duncan]

With so few new courses being built I don't know it would make much real difference now. But it might get the ruling bodies to start thinking father down the line about equipment rather than continually punting into the next season.

[Kyle Harris]

I draw the line at the ruling bodies having on an opinion on anything de jure in terms of architecture or maintenance standards. Bad idea.

[Jay Mickle]

Might be more fun to see the pros have to play with clubs from era in which the course was built. Ten thousand yard courses could be played with titanium plutonium faced drivers with helium core balls.

[Peter Flory]

Would a 36 hole facility with two 6,800 yard courses be deemed more responsible than an 18 hole facility with on 7,800 yard course? 

[BCrosby]

One of the glories of golf is that there are so few rules defining its playing venues. A regulation course should have 18 or 9 tees and 18 or 9 cups and that's pretty much it. We should keep it that way.

An interesting historical note is that in 1900 there was a movement to regulate the length of holes so that handicaps would travel more transparently from course to course. It never happened, but in a curious twist the idea triggered a long series of exchanges on what counts as a 'great hole' that went on for several months. It was in those exchanges that led John Low to first articulate the basic principles of strategic architecture in 1901.


Bob

[Jonathan Mallard]

I draw the line at the ruling bodies having on an opinion on anything de jure in terms of architecture or maintenance standards. Bad idea.

Do USGA green specifications count
Or the recommended maximum slopes for pinnable surfaces?

[Kyle Harris]

I draw the line at the ruling bodies having on an opinion on anything de jure in terms of architecture or maintenance standards. Bad idea.

Do USGA green specifications count
Or the recommended maximum slopes for pinnable surfaces?

There's a difference between standards of competition (nothing like receiving a lecture on USGA recommendations for hole locations used for its competitions from the guy who hit three breakfast lunch balls from the first tee) and a rule defining a fairway or putting green based on HOC or a limit to the distance a hole or course may be.

[A.G._Crockett]

We're only talking about the pros here, right?  The yardage limits wouldn't have anything to do 99.99% of golfers.

How would you factor in elevation?  Elevated tees?  Prevailing winds?  Speed of fairways?  And so on...
Given that you can't factor those things in with any sort of an adjustment, what would be the point?  And since so few players play the tips on existing courses anyway, what would be the impact?  And, as others have already said, the infinite variety, if not randomness, of the playing field for golf is one of the essential charms.

Effectively, EVERY course already has a yardage limit specific to the property.  If that's too short for the pros, then another venue will have to do.  If that's too long for me, then I'll move up. 

[Tom_Doak]

We're only talking about the pros here, right?  The yardage limits wouldn't have anything to do 99.99% of golfers.
 

A.G.:  It's really not about the pros, so much as it's about convincing clubs which are never going to host the pros not to build their courses 10% too long and 20% too hard so they can pretend they're going to host the pros someday.

[Tom_Doak]

Apologies - this got posted with tiny type previously because I had cut and pasted.

What would you think if the governing bodies of the game instituted a maximum length for all golf courses?New courses were not to be built at a length that exceeded the stated maximum. The action perhaps motivated by the idea of responsible resource use.How would such an edict be met by architects?

Matthew:


In general, I'm not in favor of the governing bodies telling us how to build courses.


In the end, the only ones who can really decide on this are architects.  I suggested here several years ago that the ASGCA should propose a limit like this, and it went nowhere . . . I was told I had my head in the sand.  Many of their members just hope to get any job, anywhere, so they don't think they can afford to take a stand on anything controversial [or forward-thinking].  As Mr. Trump would say - sad!


So at the end of the day, it's an individual decision.


I can tell you that from the beginning of my career, I've resisted building courses over 7000 yards, more than anyone I know in the business.  That doesn't mean I've refused to do it . . . and my resistance has slipped a bit over the last 10-15 years, usually because of mitigating factors [altitude] or insistent clients.  Some examples from my career:


When we built Beechtree it actually measured out to 6999 yards    Instead of lying on the scorecard, the client built an extra tee at the 18th to get it up to 7023.


When we were building Pacific Dunes, Mike Davis [among others] whispered to Mike Keiser that if we could find tees to get it up over 7000 yards, it could "host any event".  But I told Mr. Keiser if he was going to host the U.S. Amateur, David's course was already plenty long for that, so there was no need to make a second "championship course" at a resort.  [And Bandon Dunes will, indeed, host the U.S. Amateur in a couple of years.]  Pacific opened at 6700 yards . . . and only 5% of golfers ever play it from that far back.


Of my four courses in Australia and New Zealand, only Cape Kidnappers is 7000+, because Mr. Robertson insisted on it, and had concrete plans to host a professional event there.  The lack of length sure hasn't hurt their status in the rankings.  By the same token, Ballyneal and Rock Creek are two of my best courses, and both were built over 7000 yards, because of the altitude.  And of the five courses I've got on the drawing board right now, only one is proposed to be over 7000, because it will host a TOUR event.


So, it's up to the individual.  But all of those guys who are convinced that they can't take a position on issues like this should really take a hard look at how much my willingness to take a position has hurt my business.  I guess really I should thank them for making it easy to separate my work from theirs, except that I don't think their lack of conviction has been good for golf as a whole.




P.S.  This is one aspect of design where you Aussies should not speak too loudly.  My understanding is that the AGU has a standard for what constitutes a "championship" course and that Commonwealth, among other courses, was convinced they had to change in order to maintain their designation in that circle.  And it boggles my mind that members at The National play those courses from all the way back in club competitions three times per year, yet the members continued to worry that our new course would be long enough and hard enough.

[Mark_Fine]

I know there is a minimum length at least for handicap purposes as I am dealing with that now trying to get an 18 hole par three course stretched to the minimum yardage!


"Scores are not acceptable to a Handicap Index when made on a course less than 3,000 yards for 18 holes or less than 1,500 yards for 9 holes.”

[Grant Saunders]

New courses were not to be built at a length that exceeded the stated maximum. The action perhaps motivated by the idea of responsible resource use.


Matt

Should the same be applied to width? Wider playing corridors equals more land required also.

Is it ok to be irresponsible with resources selectively?

[Thomas Dai]

An interesting debate but isn’t there a cart before the horse element here and that ball restrictions should be the area to concentrate on first?
Atb

[BCrosby]

An interesting debate but isn’t there a cart before the horse element here and that ball restrictions should be the area to concentrate on first?
Atb

Yes.

[Tom_Doak]

An interesting debate but isn’t there a cart before the horse element here and that ball restrictions should be the area to concentrate on first?
Atb

Yes.

Actually, no.  That's what allows both sides to keep passing the buck.


Architects say, I've got to defend shot values until the governing bodies do something about equipment.


And the equipment companies say, look how hard architects are making their courses!  You can't expect the poor average golfer to give up his Pro V1 !


Rinse and repeat.


It would be better if architects did something that made a better case for arms limitations, instead of making their courses harder and harder to enable the governing bodies to punt.  But there are not many real leaders on either side.

[Peter Pallotta]

Stating the obvious: the modern game, even 'merely' for good amateurs, seems to call not only/simply for longer courses & stretched-out architecture but for a different kind of architecture, a different conception of design -- to put it too boldly, for a newer set of templates, ones that factor in/acknowledge not only modern day distances but also modern day trajectories and spin-rates and green speeds and rough-neutralizing hybrids and 64 degree wedges. That's why Brandel Chamblee's series of tweets, however much his own agenda(s) and Twitter's built-in limitations obscure the main point, are at least worthy of discussion, ie that if we accept that the game has changed dramatically in the last 30 years but don't for the moment choose to fight (in my view, the good fight) for roll backs or bifurcation, the questions of *what* this new kind of architecture might be and of *how* it might work are very important ones, lest we run the risk of the easy answer winning out: 8400 yard courses with fairways the width of bowling alleys and greens stimping at 16.
Peter

[BCrosby]

Tom -


I look forward to you (and perhaps others) doing something architectural about the arms race. It is easily the biggest challenge the discipline faces. We have fretted over the issue here at GCA for years. I can think of no one better positioned to take it on.


Bob

[/size][size=78%] [/size]

[Thomas Dai]

Colour coding of golf balls - Tony Jacklin suggestions in an article from a couple of weeks ago - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-golf-jacklin-balls/jacklin-wants-colour-coded-balls-to-limit-distance-idUKKCN1N706H
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Colour coding of golf balls - Tony Jacklin suggestions in an article from a couple of weeks ago - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-golf-jacklin-balls/jacklin-wants-colour-coded-balls-to-limit-distance-idUKKCN1N706H
Atb

There is a really good joke there but I cannot bring myself to post it.  Where is JakaB when you need him?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom -


I look forward to you (and perhaps others) doing something architectural about the arms race. It is easily the biggest challenge the discipline faces. We have fretted over the issue here at GCA for years. I can think of no one better positioned to take it on.


Bob

The only real solution in an arms race is for both sides to lay down their arms.


Eventually, most societies have come to realize this. 


But in our present society there is just too much money being made from arms dealing, with all parties stoking fear and convincing people *to pay them* to defend against the other's aggression.


Having seen how this is going on the big stage, I am not so naive as to think that I can change the dynamic all by myself.  And though I keep trying to find other conscientious objectors, not many seem willing to risk any potential future earnings or career accolades to sign on to the cause.


So I will just continue to follow my own conscience on the matter.


P.S.  Can you tell I grew up with the Vietnam War on the TV news every night?

[James Brown]

When is the last time someone shortened an existing golf course because it was too long?

[Tom_Doak]

When is the last time someone shortened an existing golf course because it was too long?

It doesn't happen, directly, but lots of courses just abandon some or many back tees because people don't use them.

[James Brown]

Best example I can think of is PB Dye Golf Club in Maryland, which was at one point near the top of the “Hardest Courses in America” and now doesn’t have a tee over 6800 yards.  All because the greens are brutality.

[Steve Lang]

When is the last time someone shortened an existing golf course because it was too long?

It doesn't happen, directly, but lots of courses just abandon some or many back tees because people don't use them.

Carol Mann became beloved by the ladies at the WCC by digging up the old back tees at our North Course and using the soil to make new forward tees... Houston Opens weren't coming back!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()